Jorge Morales Pedraza an Economic and Technologically Sound

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

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

123 Jorge Morales Pedraza Vienna Austria

ISBN 978-3-319-52215-9 ISBN 978-3-319-52216-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932000

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface

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

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

v vi Preface

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

Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is not a cheap alternative or/and an easy option free of risks for many countries. It is a fact that many countries do not have the necessary conditions to use, in an economic and safe manner, nuclear energy for electricity generation at least during the coming decades. From the technological point of view, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation could be very complicated and costly for many countries, particularly for those with a low level of technological development or with limited financial resources to be invested in the nuclear energy sector. There is an agreement within the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants represent a long-term investment with deferred pay-outs. Moreover, the nuclear industry is very capital-intensive. This means that a high upfront capital investment is needed to set up the project (between 10–15 years) and a long payback period is needed to recover the capital expenditure. The longer is this period, the higher is the probability that, the scenario conditions may evolve in a different, unfavourable way, as compared to the forecasts. A capital-intensive investment requires the full exploitation of its operating capability and an income stream as stable as possible. On a long-term horizon, a low volatility in a variable trend might translate into a widespread range of realisations of the variable value. This condition is common to every capital-intensive industry. Nevertheless, some risk factors are specific or particularly sensitive to the nuclear industry: Typically, the public acceptance, the political support in the long-term energy strategy, and the activity of safety and regulatory agencies. For these reasons, nuclear investment is usually perceived as the riskier investment option among the different available power generation technologies. In addition, some of the countries that are now considering nuclear power as a potential option in the future, lack well-prepared and trained professionals, technicians, and highly-qualified workers, and have a relatively small electrical grid, elements that could limit the use of this type of energy for electricity generation in the future. In comparison to coal-fired and natural gas-fired-power plants, it is true that for many countries nuclear power plants could be more expensive to build, although less expensive to operate. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all countries with major nuclear programmes revised their long-term energy plans and have developed stringent safety measures so that they can continue with their nuclear power development in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety measures in almost all nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the world, it is expected that the installation of new units in several countries in the future will continue its growth trajectory, but Preface vii perhaps at a slower pace. In some countries, all nuclear power plants currently in operation will be phased out during the coming decades, excluding with this action the inclusion of nuclear energy for electricity generation in their future energy mix. The future growth of nuclear power will be driven by large-scale capacity additions in the Asia and the Pacific market. Out of 495 new projects, 316 are planned to be constructed in the Asia and the Pacific region (63.8% of the total). In addition, in 2014, a total of 47 units were under construction in that region (70% of the total units under construction) and 142 units were planned for 2030. Asians’ investment in nuclear projects could reach US$781 billion during the period up to 2030. On the other hand, it is important to be aware that nuclear power capacity is expected to rise steadily worldwide, but at a slower path than initially planned. This increase is needed to satisfy an increase in the demand of energy in several countries, particularly in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and in some newcomers like the UAE, Turkey, Belarus, Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, and Bangladesh, to reduce the greenhouse emissions, and the negative impact on the environment as a result of the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation. In 2016, there were 60 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries according to IAEA sources (IAEA-PRIS 2016). Although most of the planned nuclear power reactors were in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 20 units; India five units; Korea three units; Japan two units; and Pakistan three units), it is important to highlight that Russia has also plans for the construction of seven new nuclear power reactors during the coming years. In addition to the setting up of new nuclear power reactors in the countries mentioned above, large amount of capacity will be generated through plant upgrades in many others. Based on what has been said before, it is expected that nuclear power capacity will reach 520.6 GWe in 2025, and that nuclear power generation will reach 3,698 TWh by the same year; this means an increase of 56.8% with respect to 2014. Chapter 2 “Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities”, written by Eng. Alejandro Seijas López, will provide the reader with the latest information about the different types of nuclear power reactors, particularly SMRs types currently under development or planned in several countries. There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31 countries. These are the following:

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

Advanced nuclear technologies are expected to drive the future of the nuclear power market. They offer exciting potential for growth in the nuclear industry and exportable technologies that will address energy security, feedstock security, and viii Preface emissions concerns. For this reason, the nuclear power sector is expected to beneﬁt soon from the following new nuclear technologies:

• Generation IV nuclear power reactors; • European pressurised reactors (EPRs); • Small modular reactors (SMRs).

A description of the economic and industrial potential features of SMRs is included in this chapter. SMRs would be less than one-third the size of current nuclear power reactors, and with a capacity less than 300 MWe. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck, rail, or ship. In other words, SMRs are designed based on the modularisation of their components, which means the structures, systems and components are shop-fabricated, then shipped and assembled on site, with the purpose of reducing considerably the construction time of this type of units, one of the main limitations that the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has today in several countries. For this reason, SMRs would be ready to ‘plug and play’ upon arrival. If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale nuclear power reactors. The modular construction process would make SMRs more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times. Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel power plants. If nuclear energy is expected to continue to be part of the energy mix in several countries in all regions in the future, then a new type of nuclear power reactors, less costly and safer, should be developed and commercialised in the future. The SMRs is seen, according to the opinion of different experts, the appropriate answer to this concern. Chapter 3 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in North and South America, Including the Caribbean Region” is composed with the aim of giving the reader a general overview of the current situation and perspective in the use of SMRs for electricity generation and other purposes in several countries in that region. Some of these countries, like Canada, U.S., Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, are using now a nuclear power programme for electricity generation, while some others are thinking to introduce nuclear energy in their energy mix in the future, such as Chile. The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation started to be used in the U.S. since 1957, with the connection to the grid of two nuclear power reactors, GE Vallecitos and Shippingport. Since 1957, a total of 171 nuclear power reactors were built in the whole region, most them in the U.S. The Three Miles Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) nuclear accidents stop all new construction of nuclear power reactors in the U.S. until today, as well as in Canada, where the last unit was connected to the grid in 1993. However, the construction of new units continued in Argentina, where the last unit was connected to the grid in 2014, and in Brazil Preface ix where the last unit was connected to the grid in 2000. These two countries continued the construction of new units in 2016, one in Argentina and another in Brazil. The new nuclear power reactors under construction in the region are mostly large units (more than 1,000 MW), except for one SMR in Argentina the so-called “CAREM-25” with a capacity of 25 MW. However, the situation in the U.S. has changed in the last years due to the support of the U.S. government to the development of SMRs as well as to the construction of new large units. For this reason, in the FY 2012 Administration budget, a new programme for the development and use of SMRs for electricity generation was approved. This would involve obtaining design certification for two light-water SMRs on a cost-share basis with the nuclear industry, with the purpose of accelerating the commercial deployment of this type of reactor in the country in the coming years. The NRC also requested US$11 million for pre-application work on SMR licensing with two developers leading to filing the design certification applications, and some initial review for one such application. More advanced designs such as metal- or gas-cooled SMRs could get some funds from DoE’s separate Reactor Concepts Research Development and Demonstration programme, US$30 million of which is envisaged for SMR concepts. In spite of what has been said in previous paragraphs, the U.S. market perspective for SMRs are not yet strong enough to be considered by the U.S. and by foreign nuclear and investment companies as a good business investment opportunity. For this reason, SMRs must find a viable marketplace in domestic markets, if this type of reactors would play an important role in the country future energy mix. In Canada, there is only one type of nuclear power reactor operating for electricity generation, the so-called “CANDU reactor”, which is a PHWR reactor type. Undoubtedly, nuclear power is an important energy source in Ontario’s industrial heartland and supplies over half the province’s electricity (in 2015 around 60% of the total electricity generated in the province). There are currently no nuclear power plants operating in Western Canada: The British Columbia government has prohibited the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and uranium mining. Over the border, Alberta’s government is considering proposals to use nuclear energy to help extract oil from the tar sands. However, it is unlikely a nuclear power plant in the tar sands could come online before the decade is out. Potential SMR supply markets in Canada include remote off-grid applications, where prices associated to diesel-fired power plants are high due to challenging access, as well as higher consumption markets in more densely populated areas. Older nuclear power plants remain a key power generation source in the south-east provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick. In the rest of the Latin American and the Caribbean countries, only Argentina is building an SMR (CAREM-25) and this situation will not change in the coming years. Chapter 4 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in the European Region” is written with the purpose of giving the reader a general overview of the current situation and the perspective of the nuclear sector in the European region. The region can be divided in five groups of states. The first x Preface group is composed by those countries that are using nuclear energy for electricity generation and has plans for the expansion in the use of this specific energy source in the future, such as France, the Czech Republic, Russia, Romania, the UK, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, among others. The second group is composed by those countries that are now using nuclear energy for electricity generation, but has no plans for an increase in the use of this type of energy source in the coming decades, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, among others. The third group is composed of countries that are now using nuclear energy for electricity generation, but will shut down all nuclear power plants during the coming years such as Germany, Switzerland, among others. The fourth group is composed of countries that are not using nuclear energy for electricity generation, but have plans for the introduction of nuclear energy in their energy mix in the future, such as Poland and Lithuania, among others. The fifth group is composed of countries that are not using now nuclear energy for electricity generation and have no plans for the introduction of this type of energy source in their energy mix in the future, such as Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Italy, among others. Today, there are 184 nuclear power reactors operating in the European region generating a total of 162,135 MWe and 16 units under construction with a total capacity of 14,810 MW. Undoubtedly, the cost of the construction of a nuclear power plant is one of the key problems facing a revival of nuclear power at world level, particularly in the European region. Up to now, the sorts of nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity have tended toward the gigantic with units reaching gigawatt levels of output. With plants that large, small wonder that the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance and meeting legal challenges from environmentalist groups can push the cost of a conventional nuclear power plant toward as much as US$9 billion in some cases. It also means very long build times of 10–15 years. This is not helped by the fact that big nuclear power plants are custom-designed from scratch in multi-billion dollar exercises, because even if the same type of reactor is used in the construction of a nuclear power plant, the structure is not always the same. With so much time and resources involved, an unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of something like a geological fault under the reactor site can make this a case of putting a lot of very expensive eggs in a very insecure basket. However, and despite the rejection of several European countries to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, there are sound economic and technical reasons for some other European countries to diversify nuclear generation by building many SMRs instead of building a small number of large nuclear power plants. It is a fact that in several European countries, nuclear-powered electricity generation should be a key component of every country’s energy portfolio to reduce their dependence on oil and coal for this purpose and of the CO2 emission. In addition, with declining fossil fuel production and reserves in Europe, the continent is increasingly dependent on imported coal and gas and so subject to volatile market prices and the ever-present threat of politically motivated disruption of supply by producers or even countries hosting pipelines. Preface xi

According to Waddington (2014), it is expected that by the year 2035, Russia, UK, Finland, Lithuania, and Slovenia will increase the nuclear power capacity by installing different types of SMRs. Russia and UK are expected to be the two European countries with the highest number of SMRs installed. Chapter 5 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in the Asia and the Pacific Region” has been written with the aim of giving the reader a general overview of the current situation and perspective of the use of SMRs for electricity generation in Asia and the Pacific Rim, the region with the current biggest nuclear power programme in the world. According to WNA, in contrast to North America and most of Western Europe, where growth in electricity-generating capacity and particularly nuclear power levelled out for many years, a number of countries in East and South Asia are planning and building new nuclear power reactors to meet their future increasing demands for electricity. During the period 2014–2025, it is expected to add, in some countries of the region, a nuclear generating capacity of 1,400 GWe, over 120 GWe per year. This is about 46% of the world’s new capacity in that period—under construction and planned (current world capacity is about 6,200 GWe, of which 380 GWe is nuclear). Much of this growth will be in China, India, and Korea. The nuclear share of these three countries until 2020 is expected to be considerable, especially if environmental constraints limit fossil fuel expansion. However, according to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency (OECD/IEA) sources, nuclear power has a limited role in Southeast Asia during the coming decades. This reflects the complexities of developing a nuclear power programme in some of the countries in that region and the slow progress to date of most countries that have included a nuclear power programme in their long-term plans. Vietnam is the most active country and is currently undertaking site preparation, workforce training and the creation of a legal framework. Moreover, Vietnam has signed a co-operative agreement (that includes financing) with Russia to build its first nuclear power plant, and with Japan for its second nuclear power plant, with the aim of entering the energy mix of the country before 2025. Thailand includes nuclear power in its Power Development Plan from 2026, but these plans could face public opposition. However, it is expected that Thailand could start producing electricity from nuclear power plants before 2030. Without doubt, Asia and the Pacific is the region of the world with the largest nuclear power programme to be implemented in the coming decades. The countries with the largest nuclear power programme are China (36 units), the Republic of Korea (25 units), and India (22 units). Japan has also a large nuclear power programme, but almost all units have been shut down after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011 and all new construction has been suspended. China has the largest nuclear power programme under construction in the world (20 units). Chapter 6 “Benefits of Small Modular Reactors” has been composed by the Nuclear Physics masters student, Mustapha Boubcher (Canada). The purpose of this chapter is to give reader a comprehensive view of all benefits associated with the use of SMRs for electricity generation. xii Preface

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

Vienna, Austria Jorge Morales Pedraza Acknowledgements

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

xiii Contents

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

xv xvi Contents

2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors...... 112 2.5.1 Plasma Conﬁnement and Its Devices...... 113 2.5.2 Fusion Reactor Projects...... 116 2.6 Conclusions ...... 117 References...... 118 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in North and South America, Including the Caribbean Regions ...... 123 3.1 Background ...... 123 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation in the United States and Canada ...... 124 3.2.1 United States ...... 124 3.2.2 Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States .... 125 3.2.3 Types of Small Modular Reactors Under Development in the United States ...... 131 3.2.4 The Commercialisation Programme of Small Modular Reactor Technology in the United States ...... 133 3.2.5 Financing of Small Modular Reactors in the United States...... 135 3.2.6 Market Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors in the United States ...... 136 3.2.7 The Need of Small Modular Reactors in the United States...... 137 3.2.8 Public Opinion Regarding the Use of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in the United States ...... 139 3.3 Canada ...... 141 3.3.1 Current Nuclear Power Plants Operating in Canada ..... 141 3.3.2 Type and Capacity of Small Modular Reactors to Be Built in Canada ...... 144 3.3.3 The Future Role of Nuclear Power in Canada...... 147 3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular Reactors in Latin America and the Caribbean ...... 147 References...... 152 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in the European Region ...... 155 4.1 Introduction ...... 155 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular Reactors in the European Region ...... 161 4.2.1 The Russian Federation (Russia) ...... 162 4.2.2 The United Kingdom (U.K.) ...... 173 4.2.3 France ...... 182 Contents xvii

4.2.4 Ireland ...... 186 4.2.5 Sweden ...... 187 4.2.6 Germany ...... 188 4.2.7 Poland ...... 189 4.2.8 Finland ...... 192 4.2.9 The Nuclear Power Programme in Other European Countries ...... 193 References...... 195 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market in the Asia and the Pacific Region ...... 197 5.1 Introduction ...... 197 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular Reactors in the Asian and the Pacific Region ...... 201 5.2.1 China...... 201 5.2.2 The Republic of Korea (South Korea)...... 213 5.2.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of ...... 219 5.2.4 India ...... 222 5.2.5 Pakistan...... 228 5.2.6 Bangladesh ...... 230 5.2.7 Indonesia ...... 231 5.2.8 Vietnam...... 233 5.2.9 Thailand ...... 235 5.2.10 Philippines...... 237 5.2.11 Malaysia ...... 237 References...... 239 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors...... 241 6.1 Introduction ...... 241 6.2 Enhanced Safety Features ...... 244 6.2.1 Improved Source Term ...... 244 6.2.2 Reduced Linear Element Rating ...... 244 6.2.3 Enhanced Decay Heat ...... 245 6.2.4 Other Inherent and Passive Safety Features ...... 245 6.3 Economic Competitiveness Between Small Modular Reactors and Large Nuclear Power Reactors...... 247 6.3.1 Lower Upfront Cost ...... 249 6.3.2 Modularisation...... 249 6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing Countries ...... 250 6.5 Proliferation Resistances ...... 253 6.6 Conclusions ...... 254 References...... 255 xviii Contents

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

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

xix Chapter 1 General Overview

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

1.1 Introduction

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

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_1 2 1 General Overview in the coming decades. The fact that expanded provision and use of energy services is strongly associated with economic development shows how important energy is as a causal factor in the economic development of countries. There are several energy sources that can be used today for electricity generation. These are: • Fossil Fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas as well as unconventional oil and gas; • Renewables, mainly hydro, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and wave; • Nuclear energy. Each government should decide what is the best and most reliable energy mix for the country’s electricity generation, taking into account the level of its energy reserves, the available technologies and the experience of the country in the use of these technologies, the infrastructure already built, the availability of well-trained and experienced professionals and technicians, the costs associated with each electricity generating source, the impact on the environment, the public opinion, among others important elements. The cost of energy has emerged as an important dimension of international competitiveness for the industry sector, in particular in light of the “shale gas revolution” taking place in the U.S. Analyses show that while fossil fuels still remain key drivers of electricity and natural gas price formation, market opening and competition appear to have significant downward price effects for both household and industrial consumers (European Commission 2014). Energy is important for the competitiveness of a country’s economy as it affects the production costs of industries and services as well as the purchasing power of households. Energy costs are not only driven by the type of fuel mix used, but they are influenced by energy policy choices as well as by technological evolutions that can contribute to reducing the country’s energy needs (European Commission 2014). Nuclear energy is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources available in the world today, generating 12.9% of the global power production in 2014 and 10.7% in 2015 (Schneider et al. 2016). Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation occupies a unique position in the debate over global climate change as it is the only carbon-free energy source that: • Is already contributing to world energy supplies on a large scale; • Has the potential to be expanded if the challenges on safety, non-proliferation, waste management, public opinion, social license challenges, and economic competitiveness are properly addressed; • Is technologically fully mature. It is important to highlight that in the view of several nuclear experts, any alternative nuclear development pathway (such as additional flexibility in technology approaches and deployment strategies) would need to be evolutionary, rather than a disruptive, radical shift (Rosner and Goldberg 2011). According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is expected to grow around the world, 1.1 Introduction 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1.2 Number of nuclear power reactor in long-term shutdown Long-term shutdown reactors Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity [MW] Japan 1 246 Spain 1 446 Total 2 692 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

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

Fig. 1.5 Annual nuclear share in electricity mix by country and historic maximum. Sources IAEA, MSC, 2016 1.1 Introduction 7 electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear power. In 2015, annual growth for global generation from solar was over 33%, for wind power over 17%, and for nuclear power 1.3%, exclusively due to China. Compared to 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol on climate change was signed, in 2015 an additional 829 TWh of wind power was produced globally and 252 TWh of solar photovoltaics electricity, compared to a nuclear additional of 178 TWh. In China, as in the previous three years, in 2015, electricity production from wind alone (185 TWh), exceeded that from nuclear (161 TWh). The same phenomenon is seen in India, where wind power (41 TWh) outpaced nuclear (35 TWh) for the fourth year in a row. Of all U.S. electricity, 8% was generated by non-hydro renewables in 2015, up from 2.7% in 2007. The ﬁgures for the European Union illustrate the rapid decline of the role of nuclear energy in electricity generation: during 1997–2014, wind produced an additional 303 TWh and solar 109 TWh, while nuclear electricity generation declined by 65 TWh. According to Fig. 1.3, the nuclear electricity generated worldwide decreased 9.3% during the period 2006–2015, except for the 2009–2010 and 2012–2015 periods. The main reason for this decrease was that the number of nuclear power reactors shutdown during those periods was higher than the number of new nuclear power reactors connected to the electrical grid. Figure 1.3 clearly shows that nuclear power generation went through a decline during the 2006–2009 and 2011– 2012 periods, caused by the drop in nuclear power generation in Japan and Germany as well as other countries after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown resulted not only in the shutdown of almost all of Japan’s operating nuclear power plants, but also in the immediate shutdown of eight units in Germany, among other plants across the world. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all major nuclear power countries revised their long-term nuclear power plans and carried out a deep revision of all safety measures in force for all nuclear power plants in operation. Because of this revision, governments developed and adopted additional stringent safety measures to continue with their nuclear power development in the safest manner. However, at least two countries have come up with plans to completely phase out nuclear power from their energy mix: Germany before 2022 and Switzerland before 2035. Other countries such as Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, are thinking of following the same path in the future, while others, such as China, Japan, France, the U.K. and other EU countries have developed strong frameworks for nuclear safety and have performed stress tests on their operating nuclear power reactors to ensure their safe operation in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety measures applicable to both existing and future nuclear power plants, it is expected that the installation of new units will continue its growth trajectory, but at a slower pace (Morales Pedraza 2015).2

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

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

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

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

Table 1.3 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction by country in 2016 Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity [MW] Argentina 1 25 Belarus 2 2218 Brazil 1 1245 China 20 20,500 Finland 1 1600 France 1 1630 India 6 3907 Japan 2 2650 Korea, Republic of 3 4,020 Pakistan 3 1644 Russia 8 6582 Slovakia 2 880 Ukraine 2 1900 United Arab Emirates 4 5380 United States of America 4 4468 Total 62 61,249 The following information is included in the totals Taiwan, China 2 2600 10 1 General Overview the countries mentioned above, a large amount of capacity will be created through plant upgrades in many other countries, particularly in the U.S. and in some EU countries.4 Only two newcomer countries are building new nuclear power reactors. These countries are Belarus and United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public information on the status of these construction projects is scarce. On the other hand, further delays have occurred over the year in the development of nuclear power programmes in Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Chile and Lithuania shelved their new-build projects, whereas Indonesia abandoned plans for a nuclear programme altogether for the foreseeable future (Schneider et al. 2016). Based on what was said before, it is expected that nuclear power capacity will reach 520.6 GWe in 2025 such that nuclear power generation will reach 3698 TWh. In the absence of major new-build programmes apart from China, the unit-weighted average age of the world operating nuclear power reactor ﬂeet continues to rise, and by mid-2016 stood at 29 years. Over half of the total, or 215 units, have operated for more than 30 years, including 59 that have run for over 40 years, of which 37 are in the U.S. This situation could force many countries either the closure of a high number of units in the coming decades or the extension of their life operation license.

1.2 Types of Nuclear Power Reactors

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

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

Table 1.4 Nuclear power reactors in commercial operation in 2013 Reactor type Main Number GWe Fuel Coolant Moderator Countries Pressurised U.S., 273 253 Enriched Water Water Water Reactor France, UO2 (PWR) Japan, Russia, China Boiling Water U.S., 81 76 Enriched Water Water Reactor (BWR) Japan, UO2 Sweden Pressurised Canada 48 24 Natural Heavy Heavy Heavy Water UO2 water water Reactor ‘CANDU’ (PHWR)

Gas-Cooled U.K. 15 8 Natural U CO2 Graphite Reactor (AGR (metal), and Magnox) Enriched UO2 Light Water Russia 11 + 4 10.2 Enriched Water Graphite Graphite Reactor UO2 (RBMK and EGP)

Fast Neutron Russia 2 0.6 PuO2 and Liquid None Reactor (FBR) UO2 sodium Total 434 372 Note In 2014, they were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries, ﬁve more than in 2013 Source IAEA

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

1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

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

6It is important to note that the term small sized reactor does not necessarily mean small sized nuclear power plant. In the case of the SMRs, a nuclear power plant can be constructed using several units of this type of reactors and for this reason could have the size of a medium or large nuclear power plants (700 MW or more). 12 1 General Overview political hot potato, even in early days when the new energy source exploded onto the world scene. Even worse, nuclear power suffers from the natural gas boom brought on by new drilling techniques and fracking that opened vast new gas fields in the U.S. and dropped the price of gas to the point where coal and nuclear have a hard time matching it (Szondy 2012). The tremendous amount of energy locked in the atom held the promise of a future in which the electricity generation would be very cheap. But although nuclear power did bring about incredible changes in our world in its primary role of generating electricity for homes and industry, it ended up as less of a miracle and more of a very complicated way of generating electricity, with a huge initial capital investment and potentially dangerous if not handled with great care. Though hundreds of nuclear power reactors were built all over the world and some countries, such as France, generate most of their electricity from it, nuclear power has faced continuing questions over cost, safety, waste disposal, proliferation and a strong public opposition to the use of this type of energy for electricity generation. Public opposition to the use of nuclear power has provoked that many Western countries are suffering a shortage of nuclear engineers to operate their nuclear power plants, because many see it as a dying industry not worth getting into. This is particularly acute in the U.S. and U.K., neither of which have retained the capacity to build the required reactor vessels and must contract these capabilities from overseas manufacturers. On the other hand, nuclear power typically is associated with large nuclear power plants, so the drive to downsize marks a significant departure from business as usual. Four of the ten largest electricity plants in the world are nuclear-powered, and the average capacity of U.S. nuclear power reactors is more than 1000 MWe (large enough to power about 800,000 U.S. homes). The smallest U.S. nuclear power reactor in operation, the Fort Calhoun power plant in Nebraska, is more than 500 MW. The huge initial capital investment that is needed to finance the construction of a nuclear power plant is another key problem faced by the revival of nuclear power in many countries. Up until now, the capacity of nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity have tended toward large nuclear power reactors with a capacity of more than 1000 MW. With nuclear power plants that large, the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance and meeting legal challenges from environmentalist groups and the public, can push the cost of a conventional 1000 MW nuclear power reactor towards as much as US$9 billion. It also means very long construction times, between 10 and 15 years in some cases, and operate under very different principles from those of previous generations. It is important to highlight that sometimes it is perceived that SMRs are meant to address users in countries that currently either do not have a nuclear infrastructure in place, or have it on a small scale, and are contemplating the use of this type of energy source for electricity generation for the first time or are thinking in a significant expansion of nuclear power. Fortunately, this is not the case, because most innovative SMR designs are intended to fulfil a broad variety of applications in developed and developing countries alike, regardless of whether they have already 1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 13 embarked on a nuclear power programme or are only planning to do so. For this reason, SMR designs offer opportunities for scale-up and, therefore, could move us faster to clean energy supplies. However, because of the high capital intensity of nuclear energy projects, the cost of nuclear electricity is particularly sensitive to the availability of financing at competitive rates (Rosner and Goldberg 2011). To keep the nuclear power option, open in several countries, a series of different nuclear power reactor designs have been emerging based on smaller, modular designs. SMRs power plants are not different from those using large nuclear power reactors. However, there are two main differences between these large nuclear power reactors and SMRs: Higher degree of innovation implemented in their designs, and specific conditions and requirements of target markets. Although varied in type and state of development, these reactors offer potential advantages to a numerous domestic and international needs for clean, carbon-free, baseload electrical energy. A study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute has projected the required growth of nuclear power, along with advanced fossil, renewables and conservation/efficiency to sta- bilize carbon concentrations in the atmosphere (Kim 2008). Under carbon-constrained scenarios, nuclear power is expected to more than double by 2035, nearly triple by mid-century and increase more than tenfold by the end of the century (Buelt 2009). What is new in this type of nuclear power reactors that is promising an increase in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation? An important difference between conventional nuclear power reactors and SMRs, in additional of what have been mentioned early, is that this new type of nuclear power reactor can be constructed in factories in pre-fabricated modules to expedite the construction of a single large nuclear power plant on the same site, and could be installed underground, which improves containment and security, although may hinder emergency access.7 In other words, SMRs are designed based on the modularisation of their components, which means the structures, systems and components are shop-fabricated, then shipped and assembled on site, with the purpose of significantly reduce construction time and costs (Morales Pedraza 2015) (see Fig. 1.7). Another important difference is the possibility to standardise this type of nuclear power reactor. In other words, some types can be built in factories that can employ economies of scale. The factory-built aspect is also important because a factory is more efficient than on-site construction by as much as eight to one in terms of building time. Factory assembly also allows SMRs to be built, delivered to site, and returned to the factory for dismantling at the end of their service lives—eliminating a major problem of conventional nuclear power reactors, i.e. their disposal (Szondy 2012).

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

Fig. 1.7 Prototype of an SMR. Source ANS

The third important difference is that advanced SMRs would use different approaches for achieving a high level of safety and reliability in their systems, structures and components, which will be the result of complex interaction between design, operation, material, and human factors, among others. Specifically, in a post-Fukushima Daiichi lessons-learned environment, current SMR designs have three inherent advantages over conventional large operating nuclear power reactors, namely: • These designs mitigate and, potentially, eliminate the need for back-up or emergency electrical generators, relying exclusively on robust battery power to maintain minimal safety operations; • They improve seismic capability with the containment and reactor vessels in a pool of water underground; this dampens the effects of any earth movement and greatly enhances the ability of the system to withstand earthquakes; • They provide large and robust underground pool storage for the spent fuel, drastically reducing the potential of uncovering these pools (Rosner and Goldberg 2011). In SMR designs, as in larger nuclear power reactor designs, the defence in depth strategy is used to protect the public and the environment from accidental releases of radiation. Nearly all SMR designs seek to strengthen the first and subsequent levels of defence by incorporating inherent and passive safety features. For example, relatively smaller core sizes enable integral coolant system layouts and larger reactor surface-to-volume ratios or lower core power densities, which 1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 15 facilitate passive decay heat removal. Using the benefits of such features, the main goal is to eliminate or prevent, through design, as many accident initiators and accident consequences as possible. Remaining plausible accident initiators and consequences are then addressed by appropriate combinations of active and passive safety systems. The intended outcome is greater plant simplicity with high safety levels that, in turn, may allow reduced emergency requirements off-site (IAEA Technical Report No. NP-T-2.2 2009). The fourth important difference is that SMRs enjoy a good deal of design flexibility. In general, conventional nuclear power reactors are usually cooled by water, which means that the nuclear power plants need to be situated near rivers or coastlines. SMRs, on the other hand, can be cooled by air, gas, low-melting point metals or salt. This means that SMRs can be placed in remote, inland areas where it is not possible to site any other type of conventional nuclear power reactors. For all the reasons mentioned above, interest in SMRs continues to grow as a real option for future power generation and energy security,8 particularly in the U.S. and in several developing countries located in different regions. However, the first phase of advanced SMRs deployment must ultimately demonstrate high levels of plant safety and reliability, and prove their economics to allow its further commercialisation. It is important to highlight that this type of nuclear power reactor would have greater automation, but will still rely on human interaction for supervision, system management, and operational decisions because operators are still regarded as the last line of defence, if failures in automated protective measures occur (Morales Pedraza 2015). For this reason, the preparation of operators for SMRs should be the same than the preparation of operators for conventional nuclear power plants.

1.3.1 Beneﬁts of the Use of Small Modular Reactors

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

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

• Reduced emergency planning zone9; • Lower initial capital investment (in absolute terms, see Fig. 1.8) and easier financing scheme; • Scalability; • Site flexibility for locations unable to accommodate larger nuclear power reactors (remote areas); • Potential for enhanced safety and security.10 However, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), their safety advantages are not as straightforward as some proponents suggest. The reasons are the following: • SMRs use passive cooling systems that do not depend on the availability of electric power. This would be a genuine advantage under many accident scenarios, but not all. Passive systems are not infallible, and credible designs should include reliable active backup cooling systems. This would add to cost11; • SMRs feature smaller, less robust containment systems than conventional reactors. This can have negative safety consequences, including a greater probability of damage from hydrogen explosions. SMR designs include measures to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations, but they are not as reliable as a more robust containment—which, again, would add to cost; • Some proponents have suggested siting SMRs underground as a safety measure. However, underground siting is a double-edged sword—it reduces risk in some situations (such as an earthquake) and increases it in others (such as flooding). It can also make emergency intervention more difficult and it too increases cost; • Proponents also point out that smaller nuclear power reactors are inherently less dangerous than larger ones. While this is true, it is misleading, because small nuclear power reactors generate less power than large ones, and therefore more of them are required to meet the same energy needs. Multiple SMRs may present a higher risk than a single large nuclear power reactor, especially if plant owners try to cut costs by reducing support staff or safety equipment per reactor. As indicated in Fig. 1.8, on average, investor-owned U.S. utilities, representing 70% of nuclear generation, have about US$13 billion in average annual revenue. A twin-unit GW-scale nuclear investment of US$11 billion would represent about 90% of their annual revenues—suggesting that a larger size project presents a risk

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

Fig. 1.8 Comparison of size of investment (i.e., overnight cost) with average annual revenues of investor-owned nuclear utilities. Source Rosner and Goldberg (2011) premium due to size alone that cannot be ignored and may well be substantial. However, for SMRs, the risk premium associated with project size has significant potential to be mitigated because lower upfront investments potentially shorten the pre-completion period and, therefore, lower pre-completion risk. These factors would result in a lower risk premium and, in turn, a lower weighted-average cost of capital. If lower weighted-average cost of capital is achieved, the opportunity to compete with natural gas-fired generation in both regulated and unregulated terri- tories would be larger than for GW-scale nuclear power plants, thus further enhancing the future competitiveness of SMRs.12 In addition to the amount of capital cost associated with the construction of SMRs, there are also safety issues that need to be considered as well. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 include a comparison of current generation nuclear power plant safety and support systems to potential SMR designs. It is important to highlight that safety issues in large nuclear power reactors are a significant element that cannot be underestimated because they require very fast reaction times to prevent damage in the event of an accident. This is not the case for SMRs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15Some industry representatives have suggested that underground siting could make SMRs less vulnerable to attack, but this is true only in some possible attack scenarios—in others, underground siting could work in the attackers' favour. No matter what safeguards are added to a plant’s design, a robust and ﬂexible security force will be needed. 22 1 General Overview underbelly of manufacturing recalls. How SMRs would in this case be handled? Would they all be shutdown pending resolution of an issue of comparable signif- icance? What about grid stability, if SMRs supply almost 25% of the electricity by 2035, as suggested by some experts. Would the SMRs be sent back to the factory on trucks or trains? Would the manufacturer train and equip technicians and engineers and send them to sites all over the world to be ﬁxed? The consideration of this possibility is something that needs to be discussed in detail by government and nuclear industry representatives (Makhijani 2013).16

1.3.2 The Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market at World Level

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

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

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

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

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

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

19One 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 plant blackout. However, some vendors are marketing these designs as “inherently safe”, which are a misleading term. While there is no question that natural circulation cooling could be effective under many conditions for such small reactors, it is not the case that these reactors would be inherently safe under all accident conditions. In general, passive systems alone can address only a limited range of scenarios, and may not work as intended in the event of beyond-design-basis accidents (Lyman 2013). 20Some SMR vendors propose to locate their reactors underground, which they argue will be a major safety benefit. While underground siting would enhance protection against certain events, such as aircraft crash and earthquakes or military attack, it could have disadvantages as well. Again, studying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, emergency diesel generators and 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 units (Lyman 2013). 26 1 General Overview attractive to military customers who need to build power plants for bases quickly. Underground installation also enhances security with less sophisticated systems needed, which also helps bring down costs (Szondy 2012). However, the underground siting of nuclear power reactors is not a new idea and has its own complications. Decades ago, both Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov proposed siting nuclear power reactors deep underground to enhance safety, but it was recognised later that building nuclear power reactors underground increases cost in a significant manner. Numerous studies conducted in the 1970s found construction cost penalties for underground nuclear power reactor construction ranging from 11 to 60% (Myers and Elkins 2009). In addition, there are also problems with the management of the nuclear waste and the handles of nuclear materials in case of an accident. As a result, the industry lost interest in underground siting at that time and no nuclear power reactors for electricity generation were built in this form.

1.3.3 Main Safety Features of the Small Modular Reactors

All prototype SMRs under research, improve all safety aspects associated with the operation of a nuclear power reactor. A 2010 report by a special committee con- vened by the American Nuclear Society (ANS interim report 2010) showed that many safety provisions necessary or at least prudent in large nuclear power reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming. Safety systems for SMRs will include the systems used to shutdown the reactor and those used to remove decay heat. The safety systems of the SMR designs all include some version of a Reactor Shutdown System (RSS). The RSS in SMRs will be inherently simpler than that of the current generation of nuclear power reactors, primarily due to the smaller size of the units. The RSS may be activated, either by loss of power, by the neutron detection instrumentation or by any other process parameter, such as the core outlet temperature of the nuclear power reactor vessel. When activated, the RSS will force the nuclear power reactor to shutdown. Should the RSS fail to be activated, the SMR’s power level would nonetheless drop, if the design incorporates a negative power coefﬁcient of reactivity, bringing the unit to a shutdown state in a safe manner (Morales Pedraza 2015). After the automatic shutdown of a nuclear power reactor, passive systems remove energy from the reactor and connected loops, respectively, in case that the units possess such systems. These passive safety systems do not require power for valve movements to initiate them. These systems may rely on the natural circulation of the process ﬂuid and/or air and do not depend on operator action. The inherent capability of these designs to remove decay heat through passive means avoids the need to resort to active systems to maintain the nuclear power plant in a safe shutdown condition. The improvement in nuclear power plant safety of the SMR designs over conventional nuclear power reactor designs is illustrated by the fact 1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 27 that many, if not all, of the systems/features upon which a current‐generation of nuclear power reactor relies, are not required to be maintained in this type of units (Morales Pedraza 2015). On the other hand, some experts’ belief that SMRs will be easier to maintain than existing nuclear power plants. Full-scale nuclear power plants have many separately housed components—the reactor core, steam generator, pumping systems, and switchyard, to name a few—each of which requires maintenance personnel. In a SMR, these components are downsized and housed together making easier all maintenance activities (Ferguson 2013). But, at the same time, it is important to be aware that this type of reactors is more vulnerable to external threat, because all its main components are built together, a feature that this type of nuclear power reactors have that need to be in the mind of governments and the nuclear industry during its construction, with the aim of avoiding any future problems related to the safe operation of this type of nuclear power reactors.

1.3.4 Different Small Modular Reactor Designs

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

21According to the IAEA, the U.S. with its nuclear energy policy is not attractive enough to mobilise the resources that are needed to expand its nuclear power programme. 22In Chap. 2 a detail analysis of the main different SMRs under research, development and construction can be found. 28 1 General Overview under development for various purposes and applications, but most of these prototypes will not be ready for a commercial operation before 2030 (see Tables 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9).23 The exceptions are five prototypes of SMR designs that were under construction in 2014: CAREM-25, an industrial prototype in Argentina,24 KLT-40S25 and RITM-200,26 floating SMRs in the Russian Federation, expected to be commissioned in 2016, HTR-PM,27 an industrial demonstration plant in China and the PFBR-500 in India. The SMRs that will be developed for deployment within the next decade are, in most cases, intended for markets different from those in which large nuclear power plants operate, i.e. markets that value more distributed electrical supplies, a better match between supply increments and the investment capability or demand growth, more flexible siting or greater product variety. These markets have different investment, siting, grid, infrastructure, application and other conditions and limitations. Therefore, the factors affecting the competitiveness of SMRs in such markets are expected to be different from those observed in established markets for electricity production. For example, upfront investment capability may be limited,

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

Table 1.7 Snapshots of small and medium-sized reactor designs under development and deployment Water-cooled SMRs CAREM-25 ACP100 Flexblue AHWR300 IRIS (Argentina) (China) (France) (India) (International Consortium) DMS IMR SMART KLT-40S VBER-300 (Japan) (Japan) (Republic of (Russian (Russian Korea) Federation) Federation) ABV-6 M RITM-200 VVER300 VK-300 UNITHERM (Russian (Russian (Russian (Russian (Russian Federation) Federation) Federation) Federation) Federation) RUTA-70 mPower NuScale Westinghouse SMR-160 (Russian (United (United SMR (United States) Federation) States) States) (United States) Elena SHELF (Russian (Russian Federation) Federation) High temperature gas-cooled SMRs HTR-PM GTHTR300 GT-MHR MHR-T MHR-100 (China) (Japan) (Russian (Russian (Russian Federation) Federation) Federation) PBMR-400 HTMR-100 EM2 SC-HTGR Xe-100 (South Africa) (South Africa) (United (United States) (United States) States) Liquid-metal cooled fast SMRs CEFR PFBR-500 4S SVBR-100 BREST-300 (China) (India) (Japan) (Russian (Russian Federation) Federation) PRISM Gen4 Module (United (United States) States) Source IAEA which would favor capacity addition in smaller increments; grids may be small or constrained, which may favor smaller capacities suitable for such grids; infrastructure and human resources may be insufficient, which would favor less complex operation and maintenance requirements; and non-electric energy products, such as potable water, which would favor plant locations reasonably close to the customers (IAEA No. NP-T-3.7 2013). Finally, it is important to highlight the fact that several countries are pioneers in the development and application of transportable nuclear power plants, including floating and seabed-based SMRs, such as the Russian Federation and the U.S. The distinct concepts of operations, staffing and security requirements, size of emergency planning zones, licensing process, legal and regulatory framework are the main issues for the deployment of this specific type of SMR. 30 1 General Overview

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

Table 1.8 (continued) Reactor type Designer, country Capacity Design status (MWe)/ Conﬁguration High temperature gas cooled reactors HTR-PM Pebble Bed Tsinghua 211 Under HTGR University, China construction GT-HTR300 Prismatic Block Japan Atomic 100–300 Basic design HTGR Energy Agency, Japan GT-MHR Prismatic Block OKBM 285 Conceptual design HTGR Afrikantov, completed Russian Federation MHR-T Prismatic Block OKBM 4 Â 205.5 Conceptual design reactor/Hydrogen HTGR Afrikantov, Hydrogen production Russian production complex Federation MHR-100 Prismatic Block OKBM 25–87 Conceptual design HTGR Afrikantov, cogeneration Russian Federation PBMR-400 Pebble Bed Pebble Bed 165 Detailed design HTGR Modular Reactor SOC Ltd., South Africa HTMR-100 Pebble Bed Steenkampskraal 35 per Conceptual HTGR Thorium Limited module (140 design, (STL), South for 4 module preparation for Africa plant) pre-license application SC-HTGR Prismatic Block AREVA, U.S. 272 Conceptual design HTGR Xe-100 Pebble Bed X-energy, U.S. 35 Conceptual design HTGR Liquid metal-cooled fast spectrum reactors CEFR Sodium-cooled China Nuclear 20 In operation fast reactors Energy Industry Corporation, China PFBR-500 Sodium-cooled Indira Gandhi 500 Preparation for fast breeder Centre for start-up, reactor Atomic Research, commissioning India 4S Sodium-cooled Toshiba 10 Detailed design fast reactor Corporation (continued) 32 1 General Overview

Table 1.8 (continued) Reactor type Designer, country Capacity Design status (MWe)/ Conﬁguration BREST-OD-300 Lead-cooled RDIPE, Russian 300 Detailed design fast reactor Federation SVBR-100 Lead Bismuth AKME 101 Conceptual design cooled fast Engineering, reactor Russian Federation PRISM Sodium-cooled GE Nuclear 311 Detailed design fast breeder Energy reactor EM2 High General Atomics, 240 Conceptual design temperature U.S. helium-cooled fast reactor G4M Lead-bismuth Gen4 Energy 25 Conceptual design cooled fast Inc., U.S. reactor Source IAEA

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

References

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

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

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

2.1 Introduction

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

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 35 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_2 36 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities followed the example of the U.S. and the former URSS running their own nuclear power programmes of construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Economic stability, stronger growth in energy demand and promising economic prospects in many countries were the engine of development of this energy source. In the early 1970s, the oil energy crisis provided the deﬁnitive boost to the use of nuclear energy for the electricity generation within the energy plans of several developed countries, such as Germany, Canada, France, and Japan, among others. Highlights the strong commitment to the development of nuclear energy for electricity generation made by France, on the basis of the use of graphite-gas reactors, the government decided to favour the use of the American pressured water technology. In addition, some developing countries, such as Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan and South Korea were prepared to begin the development of their nuclear power programmes (Mínguez 2015). In the coming years the main developed countries will continue to increase their installed power capacity to face the industrial challenges, but much of the future expansion of the electricity needs will take place in developing countries, particularly in China and India, who have part of its population with very limited access to electricity or not access at all. These countries are expecting to have a quick growth in the energy demand in the coming years. In 2016, a total of 31 countries was operating 447 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 389,051 MWe distributed in all regions of the world. Nuclear energy is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources available in the world today generating 11.5% of the global power production, according to WNA. The nuclear energy continues to be an interest energy source for many countries in spite of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Now, several alternatives are under consideration, either throughout increasing power and the lifespan of currently nuclear power plants up to 60 years of operation or with the development of new nuclear reactor designs, some already under construction and others in design phase. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, occurred on March 2011 in Japan, caused a slowdown in the nuclear renaissance, and forced many countries to review their approved nuclear power programmes, to adopt a decision to review the safety of their nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, such as Japan, the U.S., the EU, China, Russia, the Republic of Korea among others, and to adopt a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power reactors or to delay the construction of new nuclear power plants. However, some of these countries are now thinking to start the construction of new nuclear power plants (Mínguez 2015). Many operating nuclear power plants will reach 40 years of operation in the next 5–10 years. One way to make nuclear power more competitive is to take a decision to extend the life of these plants, from 40 to 60 years. Another way is to bet on the construction of new plants. 2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 37

2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors

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

2.2.1 Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors

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

1These countries are: France, United Kingdom, United States, China, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Russia and Switzerland. The group has today 14 members with the incorporation of Argentina, Australia, and Brazil. The European Union is also a member of the GIF. The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) is the implementing organisation for development of nuclear energy within the European Union. 38 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities operating today. The advanced LWRs and other systems with inherent safety features and more favourable characteristics in the event of extreme events such as those associated with core damage, which are so-called “Generation-III”. These reactors have been designed in recent years. Generation-III+ offers signiﬁcant improvements in safety and economics over Generation-III advanced reactors and are under development and are being considered for deployment in several countries, in fact, new nuclear power reactors built between now and in the coming decades will likely be chosen from this type of nuclear power reactor. A typical example is the EPR—the European Pressurised-Water Reactor. While the current second and third generation of nuclear power reactors designs provide an economically, technically and publicly acceptable electricity supply in many countries, further advances in nuclear energy system design can broaden the opportunities for the use of nuclear energy for this speciﬁc purpose. The fourth generation of nuclear power reactors, Generation IV, is expected to start being deployed by 2030.

2.2.2 GIF Initiative Goals

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

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

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

(i) Sustainability-1: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will provide sustainable energy generation that meets clean air objectives and promotes long-term availability of systems and effective fuel utilisation for worldwide energy production. (ii) Sustainability-2: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will minimise and manage their nuclear waste and notably reduce the long-term stewardship burden, thereby improving protection for the public health and the environment (GIF 2002). 40 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

2.2.3 Descriptions of the Generation IV Systems

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

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

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

2.2.3.1 The Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)

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

2.2.3.2 The Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)

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

Fig. 2.4 Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002 core. Nuclear power reactor size options under consideration range from small, 50 to 300 MWe modular reactors to larger units up to 1500 MWe. The outlet temperature range is 500–550 °C for the options under consideration (GIF 2014). The fuel cycle employs a full actinide recycle with three conﬁgurations: pool, loop and modular. A large size (600–1500 MWe) loop-type reactor with mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel and potentially MA-bearing fuel, supported by a fuel cycle with advanced aqueous processing at a central location serving a number of units; an intermediate-to-large size (300–1500 MWe) pool-type reactor with oxide or metal fuel; and a small size (50–150 MWe) modular type reactor with metal-alloy fuel (uranium-plutonium-MA-zirconium), supported by a fuel cycle based on pyro-metallurgical processing in facilities integrated with the nuclear power reactor (GIF 2014). The SFR is designed for management of high-level wastes and, in particular, management of Pu and other actinides. Important safety features of the system include a long thermal response time, a large margin to coolant boiling, a primary 44 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

2.2.3.3 The Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor (SCWR)

The SCWR system is a high temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactor that operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water at 374 °C, 22.1 MPa or 705 °F and 3208 psia (GIF 2002). The supercritical water coolant enables a thermal efficiency about one-third higher than current light-water reactors, as well as simplification in the balance of 2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 45 the nuclear power plant. The balance of the plant is considerably simplified because the coolant does not change phase in the reactor and is directly coupled to the energy conversion equipment. However, steam above the critical point is highly corrosive and requires special designed materials. The reference system is 1500 MWe with an operating pressure of 25 MPa and a nuclear power reactor outlet temperature of 510 °C, possibly increasing up to 625 °C. The fuel is UO2. Passive safety features are incorporated similar to those of simplified boiling water reactors (SWBRs) (GIF 2009). The SCWR system is primarily designed for efficient electricity production, with an option for actinide management based on two options in the core design: The SCWR may have a thermal or fast-spectrum reactor; the second is a closed cycle with a fast-spectrum reactor and full actinide recycle based on advanced aqueous processing at a central location. The concept may be based on current pressure-vessel or on pressure-tube reactors, and thus may use light water or heavy water as a moderator (Ragheb 2014) (Fig. 2.6).

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

2.2.3.4 Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

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

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

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

2.2.3.5 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

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

2.2.3.6 Lead Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)

The LFR system features a fast-spectrum Pb or Pb.Bi eutectic liquid metal-cooled nuclear power reactor and a close fuel cycle for efﬁcient conversion of fertile uranium and management of actinides. The fuel is composed of fertile uranium and transuranic, and is metal or nitride based. The plant can be large and monolithic 48 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.8 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002 with a factory manufactured battery of 1200 MWe or it could be a modular system with 300–400 MWe or it could be a small battery of 50–150 MWe that features a very long refuelling interval (GIF 2002) (Fig. 2.9). It has a fast neutron spectrum with a closed full actinide recycle fuel cycle with central or regional fuel cycle facilities. The LFR is cooled by natural convection

Fig. 2.9 Lead Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002 2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 49 with a nuclear power reactor coolant temperature of 550 °C, possibly ranging up to 800 °C with advanced materials. The high temperature enables the production of hydrogen by thermo-chemical processes (GIF 2002). The small size LFR is designed as a nuclear battery. It is a small factory-built turnkey nuclear power plant operating on closed fuel cycles with very long refuelling intervals of 15–20 years’ cassette core or replaceable reactor module. Its features are designed to meet market opportunities for electricity production on small grids and for developing countries that may not wish to deploy an indigenous fuel cycle infrastructure to support their nuclear energy systems. The battery system is designed for electricity distrusted generation and other energy products, including hydrogen and fresh water obtained through sea water desolation (GIF 2002).

2.2.4 The Future of the Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors

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

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

• Reference concept of 2400 MWth nuclear power reactor capable of breakeven breeding; • Improving the design for the safe management of loss-of-coolant accidents including depressurisation and a robust removal of decay heat without external power supply; • Advancing suitable nuclear fuel technologies with out-of-pile and irradiation experiments; • Building experimental facilities for qualifying the main components and systems; • Design studies for a small experimental nuclear power reactor. There are four challenges need to be overtaken to achieve GIF objectives: Testing the structure for resiliency during radiation under temperatures up to 1400 °C; improvement in heat removal at low pressures of the He coolant in case of leakage and low thermal inertia; study of passive approaches of natural convection cooling; and the development of semi-passive heavy gas injectors and conduction paths. (b) Lead Cooled Fast Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities A two-stage development programme leading to industrial deployment is envisaged by 2025 for reactors operating with relatively low temperature and power density, and by 2040 for more advanced higher-temperature designs. In Japan, two basic design concepts have been developed: a small LFR called LSPR and a direct contact PBWFR. In parallel, accelerator driven system (ADS) activities have been performed. At present, the experimental activities are concentrated on basic research related to thermal-hydraulics, material corrosion, oxygen sensor, and oxygen control (GIF 2014). The Russian Federation is carrying out design activities for the BREST-300, expected to be in operation after 2020. In parallel activities are carried out on SVBR-100, a Lead-Bismuth Eutectic Cooled Reactor, based on the previous experience developed for naval propulsion systems (GIF 2014). In Europe, significant activities included projects aimed at the conceptual design of an industrial-size plant, the conceptual design of a 300 MWth demonstrator called “ALFRED” (Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator) and the activities on MYRRHA (an accelerator driven lead-bismuth cooled system) designed by SCK-CEN in Belgium (GIF 2014). In the U.S., only limited development of the Small, Sealed, Transportable, Autonomous Reactor (SSTAR) has been carried out. However, private investors are considering possible modifications of this design to shorten its implementation phase, and there is some industrial interest in promoting a LFR concept (GIF 2014). In China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences started in 2011 a new effort to develop an ADS. The China Lead-Based Reactor (CLEAR) was selected as the reference reactor. The CLEAR development plan includes three phases: The first being a 10 MWth LBE-cooled research device (CLEAR-I), with both critical and sub-critical modes of operation, expected to be built roughly 2017; the second phase 2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 51

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

testing; qualification of computational tools; first integral component tests and start of design studies for a prototype; and in-pile tests of a small scale fuel assembly in a nuclear reactor; • Definition of a SCWR prototype (size and design features). Issues for development include corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, radiolysis as a function of temperature and fluid density, water chemistry, dimensional and micro-structural stability and strength, embrittlement and creep resistance. The effects of neutrons, gamma radiation and impurities introduced into the primary system on water radiolysis needs to be studied. Water flow could affect the criticality safety of the system, since cold water would have a higher moderating ability possibly leading to a power surge. (d) Very High Temperature Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities While the original approach for VHTR at the start of the Generation IV programme focused on very high outlet temperature and hydrogen production, current market assessments have indicated that electricity production and industrial processes based on high temperature steam that require outlet temperatures of 700– 850 °C, already have a great potential for applications in the next decade and also reduce the technical risk associated with higher outlet temperature. As a result, over the past decade, the focus of design studies has moved from higher outlet temperatures designs such as GT-MHR and PBMR to lower outlet temperature design such as HTR-PM in China and the NGNP in the U.S. (GIF 2014). The ten-year objectives by GIF are: • In the future, the main focus will be on VHTR with core outlet temperatures of 700–950 °C; • Further R&D on materials and fuels should enable higher temperatures up to above 1000 °C and a fuel burnup of 150–200 GWd/tHM; • Development of further approaches to set up higher-temperature process heat consortia for end-users interested in prototypical demonstrations; • Development of the interface with industrial heat users-intermediate heat exchanger, ducts, values and associated heat transfer fluid:

– Advancing H2 production methods in terms of feasibility and commercial viability to better determine process heat requirements for this application. – Regarding nuclear safety: Verify the effectiveness and reliability of the passive heat removal system; confirm fuel resistance to extreme temperatures (*1800 °C) through testing; and proceed with the safety analyses of couple nuclear processes for industrial sites using process heat. (e) Molten Salt Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities For the MSR, no SA have been signed, and collaborative R&D is pursed by interested members under the auspices of a provisional steering committee involving France, Russia and Euratom (WNA 2016). There will be a long lead time to prototypes, and the R&D orientation has changed since the project was set up, 2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 53 due to increased interest. It now has two baseline concepts: the Molten Salt Actinide and Transmuter (MOSART), and the Molten Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR) (GIF 2014). In 2011, a European project called “EVOL” (Evaluation and Viability of Liquid Fuel Fast Reactor Systems) started, in parallel with a complementary Russian project named “MARS” (Minor Actinide Recycling in Molten Salt). The common objective of these projects was to propose conceptual design for the best MSFR system configuration (GIF 2014). The ten-year objectives by GIF are: • A baseline concept: MSFR; • Commonalities with other systems using molten salts (FHR, heat transfer systems); • Further R&D on liquid salt physical chemistry and technology, especially on corrosion, safety-related issues and treatment of used salts. (f) Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities Alter entering in 2000s, the nuclear energy caught people´s attention again for its capacity of supplying suitable energy without giving harmful effects to the environment such as global warming. In France, Russia, India, China, the Republic of Korea and Japan, each country made a development plan for the realisation of the next generation SFR technology, which has an economic competitiveness in parallel with further enhanced built-in safety features. In Russia, although they have faced the slow-down phase in the past, such as a postponement of the construction of BN-800 reactor, they are now attaining excellent capacity factor in the BN-600 reactor, have complemented the construction of the BN-800 reactor and achieved the first critically in 2014. The BN-1200 design has been in progress as the next generation reactor (Pioro 2016). In China, an experimental fast reactor has been connected to the grid in 2011 as the result of vigorous R&D as a response to the foreseen large increase in the domestic energy demand. Then a prototype reactor, CFR-600 and the following commercial reactor, CFR-1000 are planned. India is also about to start a prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) (Pioro 2016). France is proceeding a Generation IV SFR prototype project called “ASTRID” (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) and the Republic of Korea and Japan proceed in their design of Prototype Generation IV Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (PGSFR) and the Japanese Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (JFSR), respectively (Pioro 2016). The U.S. is continuing a modular SFR development whereas 4S, PRISM and Travelling Wave Reactor-Prototype are being developed in the industry (Pioro 2016). The ten-year objectives by GIF are: • Three baseline concepts (pool, loop and modular configurations); • Several sodium cooled reactors operational or under construction (e.g. in China, India, Japan and Russia); 54 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)

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

2.3.1 EPR Design Project

In 1989, Framatome (France) and Siemens (Germany), the most experienced makers of European nuclear power plants, decided to cooperate to design a new PWR reactor generation, so they set up a joint venture, which they called “Nuclear Power International (NPI)”. At the end of 1991, the electrical French company Electricité de France (EdF) and the mainly part of the electrical German operators of nuclear power plants merged their development programmes with NPI, and in this manner, EPR design was started. For this task, both manufacturers contributed the experience gained through the design, the construction, putting into service and the operation of existing PWRs in France and Germany, and they carried out an exhaustive analysis of technical solutions, comparing and evaluating them before their integration into EPR design. Thanks to the successfully collaboration of all parties involved, it has been achieved very satisfactory results, not only for superposition of existing design 2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 55 features, otherwise throughout a carefully reassessment and combination of the best alternatives. The goal was to achieve a design that merged both features French and German designs so that the optimal solution was reached with what the best of each one. As a result, the EPR is the direct descendent of the French N4 series nuclear power reactors, which are the most modern reactors in operation today, and Konvoi Germans, the latest design of Siemens before its merger with Framatone. The EPR reactor, therefore, provides new technologies based on about a well-know and safe models like are N4 and Konvoi. For this reason, its design has been based on an update and improve of the above mentioned type of nuclear power reactors, giving rise to a safer, more efficient and more competitive reactor. Main objectives assigned to EPR were twofold: • After a carefully evaluation of specific passive safety systems features, it was decided to design the EPR following an evolutionary approach: The advantage of founding an advanced design on operational experience from approximately 100 nuclear power reactors constructed by Framatone and Siemens was deemed by the designers to be quite important; • As important as the evolutionary feature, was the objective to ensure the competitiveness of nuclear power generation in comparison with other alternative energy sources. EPR was intended to provide a significant improvement in terms of power generation costs as compared to most modern nuclear power reactors, including gas power plants with combined cycles. To match this objective a large unit power size was selected, i.e. in the 1600 MWe range (Debontride 2006).

2.3.2 EPR Description

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 2.11 Typical EPR layout. Source AREVA (2008) 58 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

2.3.3 Safety, Competitiveness and Flexibility

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

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

2.3.4 EPR Projects

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

€135 million in alleged loss of profit. In May 2016 Areva NP called off arbitration negotiations for a settlement with TVO (WNA 2016). (b) Flamanville 3 (France) First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville nuclear power plant on 6 December 2007. As the name implies this will be the third nuclear power reactor on the Flamanville site and the second instance of an EPR being built. Electrical output will be 1630 MWe (net) and the project involves around €3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EdF. It is important to highlight that the construction of the Flamanville nuclear power plant also had suffered of certain delay and increase in the budget allocated to the construction of the EPR reactor on an estimated of €10.5 billion, three times its original estimate (WNN 2015). (c) Taishan 1 and 2 (China) In 2006, Areva took part in the first bidding process for the construction of four new nuclear power reactors in China, together with Toshiba-owned Westinghouse and Russian Atomstroexport. However, Areva lost this bid in favour of Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactors, in part because of Areva’s refusal to transfer the expertise and knowledge to China. Following this Areva managed to win a deal in February 2007, worth about €8 billion for two EPRs located in Taishan, Guangdong Province in southern China, in spite of sticking to its previous conditions. The General Contractor and Operator is the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company. As of December 2012, the two Taishan EPRs will cost about the same as the single EPR being built in the Finnish Olkiluoto estimated in €8.5 billion (WNN 2007). In November 2007, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy signed a US $12 billion deal that will allow the third and fourth EPR units to be constructed in China (Nuclear Engineering International 2007). (d) Hinkley Point C (United Kingdom) On March 2013, planning consent for Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant was given, and on October 2013, UK government have agreed with EdF, after more than two years of negotiation, that the French company will be guaranteed a strike price of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of power produced by the Hinkley Point C power plant for 35 years, around double the current market rate at the time (Gribben and Ronald 2013). Following an 11-month investigation into UK support for Hinkley Point C nuclear project, the European Commission approved a UK support package on October 2014. Because of that, Austria and Luxembourg, on June 2015, launched their appeal at the General Court of the European Union, challenging the European Commission’s clearance decision (Buckworth et al. 2015). EdF and UK government were about to sign off the subsidiary deal for the £18 billion plant on 29 July 2016, after the board of EdF approved the project by ten votes to seven, Greg Clark, the new Business and Energy Secretary, announced 2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 61 a new review that the final decision will now be delayed until in the early autumn. This announcement surprised EdF, whose directors were preparing to sign contracts with the government (Gosden and Swinford 2016). (e) Possible future nuclear power plants In February 2009, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) signed a MoU with Areva to set up two 1650 MWe reactors at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. This was followed by a framework agreement in December 2010. NPCIL has ambitions to build up to 9900 MW at the Jaitapur site, equating to six EPRs, according to Areva sources. In July 2008, the French President announced that a second EPR would be built in France due to high oil and gas prices. Penly was chosen as the site in 2009, with construction planned to start in 2012. However, in 2011, following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, EdF postponed public consultations. In 2013, EdF confirmed there was no start plan for Penly, as expected demand did not warrant it (WNA 2016).

2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

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

2.4.1 Why the Interest in Small Modular Reactors

Small reactors and the modular construction of them are not a new concept. Historically, early reactors for commercial electricity production were of small size, 62 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities a consequence of the prudent engineering process of constructing plans starting at small ratings to gain the needed construction and operating experience necessary to move confidently to larger ratings. Now a half-century of experience, commercial civil reactors are being deployed with ratings of up to 1660 MWe. Additionally, small units were built for terrestrial deployment to provide electric power for remote, vulnerable military sites, for the propulsion of submarines, naval and commercial ships, and for aircraft propulsion. However, starting from the mid-1980s, a new set of requirements have motivated the deployment of intentional smaller reactors in some countries aimed at the niche markets that cannot accommodate nuclear power plants with reactors of large capacity. The main arguments in favour of SMRs are: • Because of their size, construction efficiency and passive safety systems, the upfront capital investment for one unit is significantly smaller than for a large nuclear power reactor, and there is flexibility for increasing capacity. This reduces financial risks and could potentially increase the attractiveness of nuclear power to private investors and utilities (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011); • Smaller nuclear reactors could represent an opportunity to develop new markets for nuclear power plants. In particular, SMRs could be suitable for areas with small electrical grids and for remote locations or, alternatively, in countries with insufficiently developed electrical infrastructure; • Effective protection of plant investment from the potential to achieve a reactor design with enhanced safety characteristics; • Possible reduction of the current emergency planning zone by virtue of smaller core inventory and potential for added safety design features. According to WAN, the emergency planning zone required is designed to be no more than about 300 m radius; • Potential benefits regarding non-proliferation of nuclear material; • Reduction of transmission requirements and a more robust and reliable grid; • SMRs are better adapted to low growth rates of energy demand; • Use of components which do not require the ultra-heavy forgings of today’s gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants and are rail shippable (Carelli and Ingersoll 2014). SMR often offer a variety of non-electrical energy products (heat, desalinated water, process steam, district heating mission or advanced energy carriers) via operation in a co-generation mode.5

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

2.4.2 Small Modular Reactors and Their Attributes

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

2.4.2.1 Safety Designs of Small Modular Reactors

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

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

2.4.2.2 Proliferation Resistance and the IAEA Safeguards System

Proliferation resistance has become one of the primary topics to be addressed if new energy systems are going to be developed as any current nuclear system presents potential proliferation risks. SMR systems could raise specific proliferation concerns mainly because they could be deployed in: a) remote areas, b) small countries, c) in large numbers, d) in countries that are “newcomers” in nuclear industry, and e) can be used not only for electric generation, but also on potable water production, heat, industrial processes, among others. In this sense, the whole SMR system requires specific attention in order to reduce the attractiveness of fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapons. The strategies to increase proliferation resistance are presently oriented to prevent access to the fuel and/or develop reactor designs implying quite long refuelling periods (Polidoro et al. 2013). The IAEA provides international verification of nuclear activities in a host state, through the implementation of nuclear safeguards that include inspections to verify facility design and nuclear inventory, and also instrumentation and other measures 66 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities that provide “continuity of knowledge” between inspections. The IAEA safeguards system is viewed as a key instrument of non-proliferation (Whitlock and Sprinkle 2012). IAEA safeguards verify the operator’s declarations about activities involving nuclear material. These declarations address the receipts, shipment, storage, movement and production of nuclear material. Inspection intensity depends on the type of nuclear material used (depleted uranium, high enriched uranium, low enriched uranium, natural uranium, plutonium or thorium) and whether the material is irradiated. Safeguards considerations take into account various aspects: • Accessibility to the nuclear material; • Whether the reactor facility is operated continuously; • How the reactor facility is refuelled; • Location and mobility of the reactor facility; • Existence and locations of the other nuclear facilities in the state.

2.4.2.3 Economic Analysis of Small Modular Reactors

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

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

2.4.2.4 Waste Problem and Decommissioning

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

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

2.4.3 Small Modular Reactor Designs

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

2.4.3.1 Light Water Reactors (LWR)

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

Table 2.1 Small nuclear power reactors operating in 2016 Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer CNP-300 300 PWR CNNC, operational in Pakistan and China PHWR-220 220 PHWR NPCIL, India EGP-6 11 LWGR At Bilibino, Siberia (cogen) Source WNA

Table 2.2 Small reactor designs under construction Name Capacity Type Developer (MWe) KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia CAREM 27 Integral CNEA & INVAP, Argentina PWR HTR-PM, 2 Â 105 HTR INET, CNEC & Huaneng, China HTR-200 Source WNA 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 69

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

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

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

Fig. 2.12 LWRs: (a) NuScale, (b) IMR and (c) CAREM. Source (a) IAEA (2014), (b) and (c) ANSTO IAEA modernised to increase plant reliability, to extend its service life and to improve the conditions of maintenance. The design of safety systems is based on safety regulations for marine nuclear power reactors and was updated to meet the requirements of the Russian Regulatory Authority—GAN RF—for nuclear power plants, according to IAEA (2004). The KLT-40S is a PWR developed for a floating nuclear power plant to provide capacity of 35 MWe per module and 150 MWth. Floating power unit (FPU) has been developed to produce electricity and heat and to transfer them to customers making use of the coastal infrastructure. Safe positioning and retaining of FPU is provided by the hydraulic-engineering structures. The coastal infrastructure includes structures and special devices for reception and transmission of electric power and heat to users, and is operated co-jointly with an FPU (IAEA 2004). The FPU is a smooth deck non-self-propelled ship. The FPU consists of a living module and a power module. The power module accommodates two KLT-40S nuclear power reactors, two steam turbine plants and electric power system. The FPU is manufactured at a specialised shipyard factory and transported to an operation site fully assembled (IAEA 2004). The floating ship-type configuration SMR (KLT-40S) provides cogeneration capabilities for reliable power and heat supply to isolated consumers in remote areas without centralised power plants. Besides, this FPU can be used for seawater desalination complexes as well as for autonomous power supply for sea oil-production platforms. KLT-40S nuclear power reactor are designed to run 3–4 years between refuelling with on-board refuelling capability and used fuel storage. At the end of a 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 71

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

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

6In 2011, members of B&W and Bechel Power Corporation entered into a formal alliance called “Generation mPower to design, license and deploy mPower modular nuclear power plant”. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 73 mPower, the BWXT mPower reactor design is a scalable, SMR, and iPWR in which the nuclear core and steam generators are contained within a single vessel. It utilises passive safety systems and is housed in an underground containment structure. With fewer components and systems, overall reliability is enhanced and affordability improved. The BWXT mPower generates a nominal output of 195 MWe per module. In its standard plant design, each mPower plant is comprised of a ‘twin-pack’ set, or two mPower units, generating a nominal 390 MWe, but it is possible to use a multi-unit (1 to 10+) nuclear power plant depending on the energy demanded by customers (the facility structure is composed of reactor modules that are fully shop-manufactured on an as-needed basis to meet demand growth). The nuclear steam supply system is shippable by rail. The generation mPower solution is expected to lower the overall capital cost of construction (three-year construction cycle) and optimise plant size to customers’ local power generation requirements. Also, the ability to bring increments of power online, while additional modules are under construction, will provide early returns on the investment. The design adopts internal steam supply system components, once-through steam generators, pressurised, in-vessel control rod drive mechanisms, and horizontally mounted canned motor pumps for its primary cooling circuit and passive safety systems. The plant is designed to minimise emergency planning zone requirements. The mPower reactor has a conventional reactor core and is standard fuel enriched to almost 5%, with burnable poisons, to give a four-year operating cycle between refuelling, which will involve replacing the entire core as a single cartridge. A 60-year service life is envisaged, as sufﬁcient used fuel storage would be built on site for this (WNA 2016). Two features of the Babcock design could cut down on operating costs. First, each nuclear power reactor will be housed in a containment structure big enough to store all of the waste generated by the plant during its 60-year life span, eliminating the need for a separate storage facility. That could be especially important, as nuclear power plant operators may have to store their own waste while they wait for the government to provide a permanent storage facility, which it is obligated to do by law. Second, the nuclear power reactors are also designed so that fuel has to be replaced only once every four years, instead of the usual two years. That will increase the amount of time that the plant can operate (Advanced Materials & Processes 2009). The primary application for the mPower reactor is electricity production. The mPower design could be retroﬁtted to support other heat-requiring or cogeneration applications. According to Generation mPower, the BWXT mPower reactor is expected to play a critical role in providing electric power while contributing to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emission in the U.S. and around the world. 74 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(6) International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) The IRIS is a LWR with a modular, integral primary system configuration. The concept was originally pursued by an international group of organisations led by Westinghouse. Currently the IRIS related activities, especially those devoted to large scale integral testing, are being pursued by Italian organisations. IRIS is designed to satisfy enhanced safety, improved economics, proliferation resistance and waste minimisation. Its main characteristics are: Medium power of up to 335 MWe per module; simplified compact design where the primary vessel houses the steam generators, pressurisers and pumps; an effective safety approach of active and passive safety systems; optimised maintenance with intervals of at least four years; and fuel is similar to present LWRs, enrichment is 5% with burnable poison (IAEA 2014). IRIS is designed to accommodate a variety of core designs. Future core designs will include higher enriched UO2 fuel and the capability to use MOX fuel. The primary application of IRIS design is electricity production. However, this integrated PWR can support the heat producing process and seawater desalination options. Coupling with renewable energy parks and energy storage systems has been addressed as well. The IRIS team has completed the design of the large scale test facility, currently under construction. R&D activities in the field of design economics, financial risk and SMR competitiveness are under way (IAEA 2014). (7) Westinghouse SMR The Westinghouse SMR is an integral PWR that improves on the concepts of simplicity and advanced passive safety that are demonstrated in the company’s AP1000 nuclear power plant. The Westinghouse SMR delivers a thermal output of 800 MWth and an electric output of greater than 225 MWe as a stand-alone unit, completely self-contained within a compact plant site. The entire plant is designed for modular construction with all components shippable by rail, truck, or barge. The elimination of control rod drive mechanism penetrations through the RPV head prevents postulated rod ejection accidents as well as potential nozzle cracking. Eight seal-less canned motor pumps are mounted horizontally to the shell of the RPV and provide forced reactor coolant flow through the core. The steam generator is a straight tube configuration with the primary reactor coolant passing through the inside of the tubes and the secondary coolant on the outside. The integral pressuriser located above the steam generator within the RPV is used to control pressure in the primary system. Both the reactor vessel and the passive core cooling system are located within a compact, high pressure, steel containment vessel (CV). The CV operates at a vacuum, and is designed to be fully submerged in water to facilitate heat removal during accident events. The Westinghouse SMR is an advanced passive nuclear power plant, where the safety systems are designed to mitigate accidents through the use of natural driving forces such as gravity flow and natural circulation flow. The plant is not reliant on AC power or other support systems to perform its safety functions. The seven day 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 75 minimum coping time following loss of offsite power is a fundamental advance- ment over the three day coping time of the current best in class plants. The below grade locations of the reactor vessel, containment vessel, and spent fuel pool provide protection against external threats and natural phenomena hazards. The nuclear power plant is designed to be standalone with no shared systems between adjacent units on the same site. Three diverse decay heat removal methods are used by the Westinghouse SMR: 1) Gravity feed, 2) Passive decay heat removal heat exchanger, and 3) Bleed and feed enabled by a two-stage automatic depressurisation system. The Westinghouse SMR uses a standard fuel product with enrichment at less than 5% in a 24-month refuelling cycle over a 60-year plant design life. (8) Holtec SMR-160 The SMR-160 conceptual design has been developed by Holtec International (U.S.) as an advanced PWR-type, producing power of 525 MWth or 160 MWe adopting passive safety features. SMR-160 achieves its supreme safety by eliminating vulnerabilities that have been the source of accidents in nuclear power plants, namely pumps and motors to run the plant’s safety systems. Instead of motors or pumps, SMR-160 relies on Mother Nature’s gravity to run all safety significant systems in the plant. Because gravity cannot fail, a SMR-160 plant is assured to remain safe under every operating and accident scenario. Replacing motors and pumps with gravity driven fluid flow systems not only hardens the plant against disasters, but leads to huge reductions in the plant’s overnight, operating and maintenance costs (Holtec International 2015). The SMR-160 uses two external horizontal steam generators and using fuel very similar to that in larger PWRs, including MOX. The 32 full-length fuel assemblies are in a fuel cartridge, which is loaded and unloaded as a single unit. The whole reactor system will be installed below the ground level, with used fuel storage. A 24-month construction period is envisaged for each unit. A modular construction plan for SMR-160 involves pre-assembling the largest shippable components prior to arrival at a site. Holtec claims a one-week refuelling outage every 42 months and an operational life of 80 years (WNA 2016). The SMR-160 is designed to be an unconditionally safe reactor, which means it will not release radioactivity regardless of the severity of the natural or manmade disaster. Every conceivable catastrophic event—severe cyclones (hurricanes or typhoons), tsunamis, flood, fire and crashing aircraft—has been considered, with appropriate features incorporated in the design of SMR-160 to ensure that it will withstand these events without releasing radioactivity or pose any risk to public health and safety. Because of these, it can be sited next to population centers without any threat to the local environment or populace. Placing SMR-1600 close to cities and towns will reduce transmission losses and enable the plant’s workers to live in the local community (Holtec International 2015). 76 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

According to Afrikantov OKBM, the VBER-300 nuclear power reactor, designed on the basis of ship-based modular PWR, is an improved plant able to be a part of co-generation plants. It embodies use, to the maximum degree, mastered technologies of ship-based modular nuclear power reactors proved by long-term operation under heavy navigation conditions, and technology and operation experience of VVER-type reactors that increases its reliability and safety. The distinctive feature of the VBER-300 nuclear power reactor design is maximum usage of proved engineering solutions based on ship reactor-building and VVER-type reactor experience. VBER design solutions permit to create a wide power range of nuclear power plants on the basis of unified equipment. The developed designs of VBER nuclear power reactors are high consistency and cover the unit capacity range from 100 to 600 MWe. The possible nuclear power plant options are: Three-loop nuclear power reactor, four-loop nuclear power reactor and five-loop nuclear power reactor. A four-loop nuclear power reactor is accepted as a basic option. The reactor is designed to have a 60-year life span and a 90% capacity factor. VBER uses standard VVER fuel assemblies enriched to 5%. The VBER-300 design concept allows a flexible fuel cycle for the reactor core with standard WWER fuel assembly. The refuelling interval can be pushed from two years out to five years (6– 15 years fuel cycle) (WNA 2016). The VBER-300 nuclear power reactors is intended to supply thermal and electrical power to remote areas where centralised power is unavailable, and to substitute capacities of available co-generation plants on fossil fuels. They are also proposed to be used as power sources for seawater desalination complexes. Nuclear power plants with the VBER-300 formed by two reactor units in the steam-condensing mode are capable of generating 600 MWe, equivalent to power demands of a city with 300,000 population. The VBER-300 preliminary design was completed in 2002, and a technical and commercial proposal (a shorter version of technical and economic investigation) for construction of a land based or floating nuclear power plant with the VBER-300 was prepared. (11) VK-300 According to NIKIET (2014), the VK-300 is a simplified integral single-circuit BWR with natural circulation of coolant. The reactor’s key components are com- paratively few: A vessel, a core, steam separators, and control. The vessel and the fuel elements have the same design as in VVER reactors. The steam separators were developed for the VVER steam generators as well. The VK-300 design relied a great deal on a long-term successful experience of operating VK-50, a BWR with natural coolant circulation based at NIIAR. The core is cooled thanks to natural coolant circulation during normal operation and in any emergency. The VK-300 design uses an innovative reactor coolant circulation and multistep separation concept, which makes it possible to ensure the 78 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities required natural circulation rate and steam quality (humidity <0.1). Special emphasis is placed on ensuring the required safety level. The safety systems are passive, feature a simple design and have analogs. The VK-300 is capable to produce 750 MWth or 250 MWe, it uses UO2 fuel with an enrichment of 4% and with 18-month refuelling (WNA 2016). VK-300 reactor facility specially oriented to effective cogeneration of electricity and heat for district heating and for seawater desalination having excellent characteristics of safety and economics. Research and development activities are currently under way for further validation and updating of the design approach adopted in the VK-300 design. In September, it was announced that six would be built and to start operating in 2017– 2020. (12) VKT-12 A smaller Russian BWR design is the 12 MWe transportable VKT-12, described as similar to the VK-50 prototype BWR at Dimitrovgrad, with one loop. The unit’s core cooling system is passive. It has a ceramic-metal core with uranium enriched to 2.4–4.8%, and 10-year refuelling interval with the reactor’s design life of 60 years (WNA 2016). (13) ABV-6M According to IAEA (2012), the ABV-6M installation is a nuclear steam generating plant with an integral pressurised LWR and natural circulation of the primary coolant. The ABV-6M design was developed using the operating experience of water cooled, water moderated nuclear power reactors and recent achievements in the field of nuclear power plant safety. The main objective of the project is to create small, multipurpose power sources based on proven marine nuclear reactor technologies, providing easy transport to the site, rapid assembly, and safe operation. The ABV-6M reactor is designed to produce 45 MWth and 8.6 MWe in condensation mode, and 14 MWth and 6 MWE in co-generation mode. The core lifetime without reloading or shuffling of fuel is 10–12 years. The ABV-6M reactor has a service life about of 60 years. The ABV-6M reactor installation is intended as a universal power source for floating nuclear power plants. The reactor is designed with the capability of driving a floating unit with a maximum length of 115 m, a beam of 26 m, a draft of 3.5 m and a displacement of 8000 tonnes. Depending on the needs of the region, the floating nuclear power plant can generate electric power or provide heat and power co-generation or can be used for other applications. The stationary nuclear power plant (land based or underground) is fabricated as large, ready-made units, these units are transported to the site in a special truck or by water. The floating nuclear power plant is factory fabricated. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 79

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

• Self-pressurised; • Safety systems relying on passive features. The most innovative feature of this design is that the entire primary coolant system is contained within the reactor pressure vessel. The integral reactor vessel contains the reactor core and support structures, steam generators, and the control rod system. The primary system is self-pressurised by the steam generated inside the vessel. The operating pressure is the steam pressure corresponding to the temperature of the coolant at the core exit. A steam chamber, located near the top of the reactor vessel, is used to regulate pressure against variations in the coolant temperature (U.S. Department of Energy 2001). Using natural circulation instead of coolant pumps has a number of important benefits contributing to higher reliability and safety, better economic performance, and sabotage and proliferation resistance. An disadvantage is that the CAREM reactor is not highly modularised and requiring a substantial amount of on-site construction (U.S. Department of Energy 2001). Fuel is standard 3.1 or 3.4% enriched PWR fuel in hexagonal fuel assemblies. With burnable poison, and is refuelled annually (WNA 2016). CAREM-25 is designed as an energy source for electricity supply of regions with small energy demands. It can also support seawater desalination processes to supply water and energy to coastal sites. The licensing process for the construction of CAREM-25 prototype was approved by the Argentina Regulatory Body (ARN) in 2010. (15) System Integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (SMART) According to the ARIS IAEA (2011c), SMART is a small-sized integral type PWR with a rated power of 330 MWth or 100 MWe. It is a nuclear power reactor with a sensible mixture of proven technologies and advanced design features. SMART aims at achieving enhanced safety and improved economics; the enhancement of safety and reliability is realised by incorporating inherent safety improvements features and reliable passive safety systems. The improvement in the economics is achieved through a system simplification, component modularisation, reduction of construction time, and high plant availability. The preliminary analyses on the selected limiting accidents assure the reliability of the SMART reactor system. By introducing a passive residual heat removal system, and an advanced mitigation system for loss of coolant accidents, significant safety enhancement is achieved. The low power density design, with about a 5% UO2 fuelled core, will provide a thermal margin of more than 15% to accommodate any design basis transients with regard to the critical heat flux. This feature ensures core thermal reliability under normal operation and any design basis events. Design life is 60 years with a three-year refuelling cycle. SMART as an integral-type nuclear power reactor contains major components within a single RPV. Eight modular-type once-through steam generators consist of 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 81 helically coiled tubes producing 30 °C superheated steam under normal operating conditions, and a small inventory of secondary side water sources as the steam line break accident. Four reactor coolant pumps with a canned motor, which has no pump seals, inherently prevents a loss of coolant associate with a pump seal failure. Four channel control rod position indicators contribute to the simplification of the core protection system and to an enhancement of the system reliability. The in-vessel pressurised is designed to control the system pressure at a nearly constant level over the entire design basis events (Koo Kim et al. 2014). The integrated arrangement of reactor vessel assembly enables the large size pipe connections to be removed, which results in the elimination of large break loss of coolant accidents. Furthermore, an advanced man-machine interface system using digital techniques and equipment reduce the human error factors, and consequently improve the plant reliability. SMART is applicable for electricity production suitable for small or isolated grids and heat district as well as processing heat for desalination purposes having the enough output to meet demands for a city of 100,000 population. SMART has been fully licensed in South Korea and a standard SMART design was approved by the Korean Nuclear Safety and Security Commission in July 2012. (16) MRX The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute designed the MRX, a small (50– 300 MWth) integral PWR reactor for marine propulsion or local energy supply (30 MWe). It has conventional 4.3% enriched PWR uranium oxide fuel and has a water-filled containment to enhance safety (WNA 2016). The advantage of the MRX design comes from its assembly-line fabrication of the entire plant, and its transportability as a self-propelled ship. Refuelling every 3.5 years may be more frequent than desired, however, the capability of performing refuelling and maintenance activities improves diversion and proliferation resistance. The design lends itself to existing commercial LWR infrastructure for fuel fabrication and handling, spent fuel processing, and waste disposal (U.S. Department of Energy 2001). The steam generator and pressurised are installed inside the pressure vessel, although there are other major components of the primary coolant system which are outside of the reactor vessel. A relatively large water inventory increases the thermal capacity of the primary systems and reduces radiation damage to the vessel. (17) NP-300 Technicatome (Areva TA) in France has developed the NP-300 PWR design from submarine power plants and aimed it at export markets for power, heat, and desalination. It has passive safety systems and could be built for applications of 100–300 MWe or more with up to 500,000 m3/day desalination (WNA 2016). According to UxC Company, the reactor’s fuel is enriched to less than 5% U-235 and one third of the fuel is replaced every 18 months to two years. The 82 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

NP-300 is based on Techicatome’s K15 naval nuclear power reactor of 150 MW and it land-based equivalent called “Réacteur d’essais àterre (RES)”, a test version of which in under construction at Cadarache. Depending on local conditions, the NP-300 could be also modified to be used as a floating power unit. (18) Nuclear Heating Reactor (NHR-200) The Chinese NHR-200, developed by Tsingua University’s Institute of Nuclear Energy Technology (now the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology), is a simple 200 MWth integral PWR design for district heating or desalination. It is based on the NHR-5. Used fuel is stored around the core in the pressure vessel (WNA 2016). (19) ACP-100 ACP-100 is an innovative design developed by CNNC and producing power of 100 MWe. The ACP-100 is based on existing PWR technology adapting a passive safety system which uses natural convection to cool down the reactor in case of operational transients and postulated design basis accidents. The ACP-100 is an integrated PWR in which the major components of its primary coolant circuits are installed within the RPV. The ACP-100 plant design will allow the deployment of one to eight modules to attain larger plant output as demands arise (IAEA 2014). Safety-grade batteries provide backup power for up to 72 h in case of a plant blackout and sufficient water is provided in the spent fuel pool to allow seven days’ grace period before fuel is uncovered (Carelli and Ingersoll 2014). The expected average fuel enrichment is about 2.4–3.0% with 24-month refuelling and 60-year design life. The ACP-100 is a multipurpose nuclear power reactor designed for electricity production, heating, steam production or seawater desalination, and is suitable for remote areas that have limited energy options or industrial infrastructure. The operation of the first unit of this type of reactor is expected to begin in 2017. (20) CAP-150 CAP-150 is an integral type SMR, which employs the most advanced PWR technology, developed by Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute (SNERDI), a subsidiary of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC). It has more simplified systems and more safety than current operating PWRs, to generate an electric power of 150 MWe (IAEA 2016). CAP-150 design is based on the state of art philosophy of advanced PWR reactor concepts. It aims to innovatively bring out a new Gen III+ LWR with higher safety, reasonable and competitive economy, and good engineering feasibility. As a supplement to large reactors, the CAP-150 is mainly developed for providing a flexible way for remote electric supply and district heating, and also to replace the old thermal power plants near cities. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 83

(21) CAP-200 The China Advanced Passive PWR 200MWe (CAP-200) is one of the serial research and development products of PWRs adopting passive engineered safety features initiated by SNERDI. The design of CAP-200 is based on the experience of the PWR technology R&D for more than 45 years, construction and safe operation for more than 20 years in China. It adopts safety enhancement measures based on lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident (IAEA 2016). Compared with large PWRs, CAP-200 has a number of advantages such as higher inherent safety, lower frequency of large radioactivity release, longer time without operator intervention, smaller environmental impact, lower site restrictions, shorter construction period and smaller financing scale as well as lower financial risk. CAP-200 can be used as a supplement to large PWRs, this reactor is designed for multiple applications, such as nuclear cogeneration and replacing retired fossil power plants in urban areas. (22) ACPR100 China General Nuclear Group (CGN) is developing the ACPR100 reactor with passive cooling for decay heat and 60-year design life. ACPR100 has standard type fuel assemblies and fuel enriched to <5% with burnable poison giving 30-month refuelling. The ACPR100 is an integral PWR, 450 MWth, 140 MWe. It is designed as a module in larger nuclear power plants and would be installed underground (WNA 2016). (23) ACPR50S The ACPR50S is a small modular offshore floating nuclear power reactor developed by the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC)—aiming for high safety and adaptability, modularised design, and multi-purpose applications. It is intended as a potential optimal solution for combined supply of heat, electricity, and fresh water for marine resource development activities, energy supply and emergency support on islands and along the coastal area (IAEA 2016). The ACPR50S adopts design simplification with less cost and lower investment risks in order to be competitive with conventional offshore energy sources. Modular design is adopted through standardised streamline manufacturing aiming for shorter construction period as well as less cost. Higher load factor to be attained by a long refuelling cycle. According to the Lyncean Group (2016), the major components of the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) are the reactor vessel, two steam generators and primary pumps, and one pressuriser. The primary system is housed within a containment structure that is protected against damage from a ship collision. Active and passive safety systems provide for core and containment cooling during an 84 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities accident. Severe (beyond design basis) accident mitigation measures include operating safety plugs to submerge the NSSS in seawater to ensure continued core cooling. The floating nuclear power plant is designed for on-ship refuelling and pre-treatment of radioactive waste. When the floating nuclear power plant is deployed in a remote location, a visiting offshore engineering services vessel will provide logistics and maintenance services as needed. An industrial demonstration plant of ACPR50S is being planned to be constructed in China, with a target of start-up commissioning in 2020. (24) Flexblue According to Lee et al. (2015), DCNS in France is developing a submerged type ocean nuclear power plant (ONPP) with an output capacity of 160 MWe, named Flexblue. Flexblue is a submerged, cylindrical, fully-modular, and transportable ONPP. Each module, with the length of 146 and 14 m diameter, is moored on a stable seafloor at a depth of up to 100 m and 15 km from the shoreline. Undersea cables would bring the electricity to customers. Flexible is manufactured in factories, assembled in a shipyard using naval modular construction techniques, transported by the ship, and located at the operation site. Depending on the seismic hazard, the module is either anchored horizontally on the seabed, or suspended a few meters from the bottom of the ocean with positive buoyancy. The modules can be manufactured in different places and in parallel, allowing a shorter overall construction time. Once the Flexblue is installed, it is monitored, protected, and operated from an onshore center. If a safety issue developed with the nuclear power reactor, it could be brought to the surface and taken to a regional support facility for repair and it could be refuelled the same way. At the end of its life, it could be repatriated to a shipyard for decommissioning, a process that would resemble the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. During exploitation, maintenance teams gain regular access to the module with an underwater vehicle. This power unit can be used within a ‘nuclear farm’ that includes other modules. This allows the owner to increment the number of units that operated on the site, depending on the power needs. Water offers a natural protection against most of the possible external hazards and guarantees a permanently and indefinitely available heat sink (IAEA 2012). The enrichment is kept below 5% and reactivity is controlled without soluble boron. This latter characteristic reduces the generation of radioactive wastes and simplifies the chemical control system. Flexiblue is designed to supply electricity to coastal grids. Presentations of the concept have been made to the French safety authority. Technical discussions have been initiated with the French technical safety authority. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 85

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.3.2 Heavy Water Reactors

The heavy water, i.e. water in which the two hydrogen atoms are replaced by deuterium atoms, is an attractive coolant and moderator because it has a much lower tendency to absorb neutrons. This allows the reactor core to be fuelled by natural uranium rather than requiring the complex and expensive process of enriching the uranium. Because of the excellent neutron economy provide by the low neutron absorption of the heavy water, this coolant became a favourite option for several production reactors (Carelli and Ingerson 2014). The following are some of the SMR heavy water reactors under development in some countries: (1) Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR-220) According to the IAEA (2011), the Indian PHWR programme consists of the fabrication of 220 MWe, 540 MWe and 700 MWe units. India is operating sixteen 220 MWe units at five nuclear power plants. The PHWR uses heavy water as the 90 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities moderator and coolant and natural uranium dioxide as the fuel. The reactor consists of an integral assembly of two end shields and a calandria, with the latter being submerged in the water filled vault. Unlike most nuclear power reactors that use batch refuelling, the PHWR is refuelled on a continuous basis using two refuelling machines—one on either end of the core. Refuelling is accomplished by inserting a fresh fuel bundle into one end of the pressure tube and collecting the spent fuel bundle that is forced out on the other end, which then transported to a spent fuel area (Carelli and Ingersoll 2014). (2) Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR-300 LEU) According to ARIS IAEA (2013), the Indian Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) is a vertical pressure tube type, boiling light water cooled and heavy water moderated reactor. The nuclear power reactor incorporates a number of passive features and is associated with a closed fuel cycle having reduced environmental impact. At the same time, the nuclear power reactor possesses several features, which are likely to reduce its capital and operating costs. The nuclear power reactor has been designed by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) mainly to achieve large-scale use of thorium for the generation of commercial nuclear power plants. This nuclear power reactor will produce most of its power from thorium, with no external input of uranium-233 in the equilibrium cycle. AHWR300-LEU is a land-based nuclear power plant. The nuclear power reactor is designed to produce 920 MW of thermal power, generating 300 MWe and 2400 m3/day of desalinated water. The nuclear power plant can be configured to deliver higher desalination capacities with some reduction in electricity generation. AHWR based nuclear power reactor can be operated in base load, as well as in load following mode. The target lifetime load factor and availability factors for AHWR are 80% and 90%, respectively. According to BARC, AHWR300-LEU employs natural circulation for removal of heat from the reactor core under operating and shutdown conditions. The reactor physics design of AHWR300-LEU is optimised to achieve high burn-up with the LEU-thorium based fuel along with inherent safety characteristics like negative reactivity coefficients, among others. The emphasis in design has been to incorporate inherent and passive safety features to the maximum extent, as a part of the defence in depth strategy. AHWR300-LEU design provides a grace period of seven days for absence of any operator or powered actions in the event of accident, according to ARIS IAEA (2013). One of the most important design objectives of AHWR300-LEU is to eliminate any significant radiological impact, and therefore, the need for evacuation planning in the public domain. This may facilitate sitting of these nuclear power reactors close to population centres, according to BARC. Site selection of several AHWR has been completed and the necessary clearance from competent authorities is underway (Fig. 2.13). 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 91

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

2.4.3.3 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTRs)

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

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

With negative temperature coefficient of reactivity (the fission reaction slows as temperature increases) and passive decay heat removal, this type of reactors is inherently safe. HTRs therefore do not require any containment building for safety. They are sufficiently small to allow factory fabrication, and will usually be installed below ground level (Fig. 2.14). The following are some of the SMR High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor under development in some countries: (1) Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GT-HTR 300) According to Takizuka (2005), the GT-HTR300 is a JAERI proposed design concept of a gas-turbine high-temperature nuclear power reactor with 600 MWth power at 850–950 °C. Based on experience gained with HTTR. The objective of the project is to establish a feasible plant design and helium gas-turbine technology with ultimate goal for commercialisation in 2020s in Japan. High temperature capability enables a wider range of applications such as high temperature heat applications. The GT-HTR300 design features modular nuclear power reactor, fully inherent and passive reactor safety, improved pin-in-block type fuel element, high burnup and long refuelling interval, conventional steel RPV, non-intercooled Brayton cycle, horizontal single-shaft turbo-machine, magnetic bearings to support turbo-machine rotor, and separate containment of turbo-machine and heat exchangers. The direct-cycle helium gas turbine of the GT-HTR300 design generates about 300 MW electric power for 600 MW reactor thermal power at 45\–50% thermal efficiency. The design incorporates all ceramic fuel, low power density, but high thermal conductivity graphite core, and inert helium coolant to secure inherent reactor safety. The inherent safety permits siting proximity to customers, in particular to 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 93 industrial heat users so as to minimise the cost and loss of high temperature heat supply. Dry cooling becomes economically feasible due to the use of gas turbine. The waste heat from the gas turbine cycle is rejected from 200 °C, creating large temperature difference from ambient air and making dry cooling tower size per unit of power generation comparable to the wet cooling towers used in nuclear plants today. The economical dry cooling permits inland and remote reactor siting even without a large source of cooling water. The nuclear power plant system consists of three basic subsystem modules including the reactor module, the gas turbine generator module, and the heat exchangers module. The functionally-oriented modules are contained in individual steel vessels situated in separate confinement silos. Partitioning the large nuclear power plant into properly sized subsystems and arranging them separately facilities cost-effective modular construction and independently-accessed modular maintenance. The modules can be factory built in whole or in phase vessel subassemblies and transported to site for erection in parallel, followed by simple piping connection (Yan et al. 2002). Typical applications of GT-HTR300 include electric power generation, thermochemical hydrogen production, desalination co-generation using waste heat only, and steelmaking. The maximum product output per reactor is 120 t/d hydrogen enough to fuel about one million cars, 280–300 MWe electricity generation with additional seawater desalination co-generation of 55,000 m3/d potable water for about a quarter of a-million population, and annual production of 0.65 million tons of steel. All these are produced without CO2 emission. (2) High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Experimental Reactor (HTR-10) China’s HTR-10, is a 10 MWt experimental nuclear power reactor. It has its fuel as a pebble bed of oxide fuel. Each pebble fuel element has 5 g of uranium enriched to 17% in TRISO-coated particles. The reactor operates at 700 °C (potentially 900 °C) and has broad research purposes. Eventually it will be coupled to a gas turbine, but meanwhile it has been driving a steam turbine (WNA 2016). (3) High Temperature Reactor Pebble-Bed Module (HTR-PM) Construction of a larger version of the HTR-10, China’s HTR-PM, was approved in principle in November 2005, with preparation for first concrete in mid-2011, full construction started in December 2012 and is expected to conclude at the end of 2017. This was planned to be a single 200 MWe (450 MWth) unit, but it will now have twin reactors, each of 250 MWt driving a single 210 MWe steam turbine. The fuel is 85% enriched uranium (WNA 2016). The HTR-PM is a commercial demonstration unit for electricity production. The twin reactor units driving a single turbine configuration was specifically selected to demonstrate its feasibility. HTR-PM commercial deployment based on batch construction is foreseeing, and units with more modules and bigger power size are under investigation. Standardised reactor modules with two, six or nine units with a single turbine (200, 600 or 1000 MW) are envisaged. 94 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Development and research on process heat applications, hydrogen production and gas turbines are continuing for future application. (4) Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR-400) According to ARIS IAEA (2011), South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor based on the evolutionary design of the German AVB, THTR and HTR-Module design. It is being designed and marketed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd. The PBMR is designed in a modular fashion to allow for additional modules to be added in accordance with demand. In addition, the PBMR can be used as base-load power plant or load-following plant, and can be configured to the size required by the community it serves. The term modular stems from the design intent that identical modules can be placed in a block of 4–8 units to make up a large nuclear power plant. The small size and modularity allow short (24 months) construction times and give flexibility to the utility to match generation capability more closely to demand than single large nuclear power plants allow. The small size is dictated by the design requirement that neither fuel nor major nuclear power plant systems may be damaged to the extent that there could exist a danger to the public at the exclusion zone of 400 m, following a total cessation of active system (Koster 2008). The reactor core and power conversion unit components are contained within steel pressure vessels similar to those employed for LWR. Cross-vessels and external piping are provided to contain flow paths to and from the reactor core and between other components of the power conversion unit. Full-scale production units had been planned to be 400 MWth (165 MWe), but more recent plans were for 200 MWth (80 MWe) (WNA 2016). The PBMR-400 can produce electricity at high efficiency via a direct Brayton cycle employing a helium gas turbine. (5) Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) The GT-MHR is being developed by General Atomics in partnership with Russia’s OKBM Afrikantov, supported by Fuji (Japan). The use of modular helium nuclear power reactors makes the system flexible and allows the possibility to use various power unit schemes: With gas turbine cycle, steam-turbine cycle, and with the circuit supplying high-temperature heat to industrial applications (LaBar et al. 2003). The modular high temperature gas cooled unit possess salient safety features with passive decay heat removal providing a high level of safety even in case of total loss of primary coolant. GT-MHR would be built as modules of up to 600 MWth, but typically 350 MWth, 150 MWe, nuclear power plant variation as a function of a module number. This provides good manoeuvring characteristics of the nuclear power reactor plant for regional power sources. Half core is replaced every 18 months and the fuel enrichment is about 15.5% (WNA 2016). The GT-MHR reactor module is located in an underground containment building. The components of the primary cooling loop are house within two 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 95 metallic pressure vessels that are connected by a cross-vessel. One of the vessels contains the modular high-temperature reactor nuclear heat source and the other the conversion power conversion unit. The power conversion unit design is based upon a recuperated direct gas-turbine cycle that is optimised for minimum cost and high efficiency. During normal operation, the heated, high-pressure helium leaving the core is routed via the hot duct inside the cross-vessel to the turbine where it is expanded to produce mechanical energy. The mechanical energy produced in the turbine is used to drive the generator, as well as two compressor gases located on the same shaft (Baxi et al. 2006). The GT-MHR can produce electricity at relative high efficiency (approximately 48%). As it is capable of producing high coolant outlet temperatures, the modular helium nuclear power reactor system can also efficiently produce hydrogen by high temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting. Russia has selected the GT-MHR as an option for plutonium destruction, because of GT-MHR’sefficiency in burning plutonium in once-through fashion, and because the technology is also readily convertible to a conventional low enriched uranium fuel cycle for commercial power applications. Reactor plant preliminary design completed with the demonstration of key technologies are underway. (6) Energy Multiplier Module (EM2) According to the IAEA (2012), the EM2 is a 500 MWt, 240 MWe helium-cooled fast-neutron HTR operating at 850 °C. The EM2 design intended to burn used nuclear fuel and has a 30-year core without the need for refuelling or reshuffling. In a first generation plant, the fuel consists of about 22.2t of LEU starter and about 20.4t of used nuclear fuel. The used nuclear fuel is roughly 1% U, 1% Pu and mixed actinides and 3% fission products, the rest is U-238. The nuclear power reactor design life is 60 years. The design has one loop and utilises two shutdown systems, control drums and separate shutdown rods. The design utilises the power conversion system for normal decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with the passive direct auxiliary cooling system. Specific design features include vented porous uranium carbide fuel, silicon carbide clad and a variable high speed turbine-generator set (TRP 2012). EM2 would also be suitable for process heat applications. The main pressure vessel can be trucked or railed to the site, and installed below ground level (IAEA 2012). (7) Antares According to UxC Company, Antares is a concept being developed by Areva and belongs to the HTR/VHTR family of SMRs. This design could be used for hydrogen production at high temperatures, for industrial heat production, and for water desalination. Antares is a modular design and uses TRISO fuel. In its standard HTR composition, each module has an output of 600 MWth and electricity production of 96 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

285 MWe with a reactor core outlet temperature of up to 850 °C. A very high temperature (VHTR) version of the Antares operates with a reactor outlet temperature of up to 1000 °C, and this design allows for hydrogen production among other co-generation features. (8) Adams Engine Adams Engine is a small HTR concept with a capacity of 10 MWe direct simple Brayton cycle plant with low-pressure nitrogen as the reactor coolant and working fluid, and graphite moderation. The initial units will provide a reactor core outlet temperature of 800 °C and a thermal efficiency near 25%. Power output is controlled by limiting coolant flow. A demonstration plant is proposed for completion after 2018. The Adams Engine is designed to be competitive with combustion gas turbines (WNA 2016). (9) The Modular Transportable Small Power Nuclear Reactor (MTSPNR) According to UxC Company, the MTSPNR design, which has recently become better known as GREM, has twin nuclear power reactors with a total thermal capacity of 4.8–5.2 MWth, producing 2 MWe el electricity. The unit is designed for co-generation of electricity and district heating and can supply 2 Â 1.2 GJ/h in heat generation. The unit is meant to service remote regions, including potentially settlements of up 2500 residents or strategically important industrial facilities. MTSPNR is a high-temperature reactor with a single circuit. The unit has a closed cycle gas turbine and is air-cooled, eliminating the need for local sources of water. It will be factory fabricated and factory fuelled, ensuring lifetime core operation. It uses 20% enriched fuel and is designed to run for 25 years without refuelling (WNA 2016). (10) X-Energy-100 (Xe-100) The Xe-100 is a small-sized pebble bed high temperature gas-cooled nuclear power reactor with continuous thermal rating of 100 MWth. It features a continuous fuelling regime with low enriched fuel spheres of about 10% entering the top of the reactor going once through the core to achieve a final average burnup of 80,000 MWd/thm after a single passage. The relatively high burnup causes the bred fissile Pu to be utilised in situ by about 90%, thus rendering the spent fuel well depleted. Furthermore, the total used fuel inventory will be stored on-site in a designated interim storage facility for the life of the nuclear power plant. A major aim of the design is to improve the economics through system simplification, component modularisation, reduction of construction time and high plant availability brought about by continuous fuelling (IAEA 2014). The Xe-100 is intended for electricity production suitable for small or isolated grids. It can also provide super-heated steam for co-generation, petro-chemical processes, etc. The Xe-100 also provides a scalable platform to increase total power generation from a single site by adding additional reactor modules. Site 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 97 configurations can consist of one to eight nuclear power reactor modules with a small operational staff. (11) Star Core HTR The Star Core HTR is a small (30 MWe) concept design of helium-cooled pebble bed reactor from StarCore Nuclear in Quebec, Canada, designed for remote locations (displacing diesel and propane) and with remote control system. The company said it is prepared to complete the design and detailed engineering, build, and begin operating at least two pilot plants in Canada by 2018 (WNA 2016). (12) MHR-T According to OECD-NEA (2009), the MHR-T reactor/hydrogen production complex makes use of the basic GT-MHR reactor design as the basis for a multi-module nuclear power plant for energy and hydrogen production. For the energy production (energy sector), MHR-T uses a four-module nuclear power plant including four reactor modules, as well as nuclear power plant systems and facilities supporting operation of these plants. For hydrogen production (chemical-technological sector) is achieved through the steam methane reforming process or high-temperature solid oxide electrochemical process from water is performed by coupled the plant with the modular helium nuclear power reactor(s). The basic operation mode of the MHR-T energy-technological complex is 100% power operation with parallel production of hydrogen and electric energy (combined mode). The use of modular helium units makes the system flexible and allows the possibility to use various power unit schemes: with gas turbine cycle, steam-turbine cycle and with the circuit supplying high-temperature heat to industrial applications. The modular high temperature gas-cooled nuclear power reactor possess salient safety features with passive decay heat removal providing a high level of safety even in case of total loss of primary coolant. (13) High Temperature Modular Reactor (HTMR-100) The HTMR-100 pebble bed is a high temperature gas cooled reactor, graphite moderated and cooled by forced helium. The existing design of the module is to produce high quality steam which is coupled to a steam-turbine/generator system to produce 35 MW electric power. The steam can be used in a wide range of co-generation applications. The reactor is also suitable to provide direct high temperature energy for process heat. The design of the reactor is based on proven technology and therefore no new basic technology development is needed. The size of the reactor and the fuel cycle were chosen to simplify the design and operation of the module. The approach to small intrinsic safe modular units ensures continuous production, easy road transportability, skid mounted sub systems, wider range of manufactures, fast construction and a fairly easy licensing process (IAEA 2014). The HTMR-100 exhibits the following excellent features: 98 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• Fully ceramic fuel elements, which cannot melt even in extreme accidents, which may result in the total loss of active core cooling; • Use of coated fuel particles (TRISO) effectively retaining the fission products within the fuel, and allowing for very high burn-up of the fuel; • Use of helium as coolant, which is both chemically and radiologically inert and does not influence the neutron balance. It allows for very high coolant temperatures during normal operation; • Use of fully ceramic (graphite) core internal structures, which enables operation at high temperatures; • A reactor core with a low power density, providing a thermally robust design with a high heat capacity, renders the reactor thermally stable during all operational and control procedures; • The reactor core can tolerate a loss of forced cooling event. Passive decay heat removal is possible and fuel temperatures stay below admissible values. Therefore, the fission products remain inside the fuel particles even in extreme accidents; • Very strong negative temperature coefficients contribute to the excellent inherent safety characteristics of the reactor; • Efficient retention of fission products in the coated particle fuel in normal operation allows for a clean helium circuit, resulting in low levels of contamination of the coolant gas, low release of radioactivity, and extremely low radiation dose values to the operation staff; • Efficient retention of fission products in the coated particles under extreme accidents results in a nuclear power reactor without catastrophic release to the environment under these conditions. The HTMR-100 is capable of supplying electric power to a large, medium and small grids, to standalone or isolated electric users as single module or multi-module plants and for medium temperature process heat applications. The HTMR-100 is a perfect fit for clients who want to progressively extend their generating capability. The unique safety characteristics of this type of reactor make it possible to introduce and construct these plants to non-nuclear countries. Developed countries that want to utilise their stock of plutonium for peaceful applications are also markets for HTMR-100 reactors. Conceptual design is completed and the design is in an early stage of the basic design phase. (14) Steam Cycle High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (SC-HTGR) The SC-HTGR is a modular, graphite-moderated, helium-cooled, high temperature nuclear power reactor with a nominal thermal power of 625 MWth and a nominal electric power capability of 272 MWe. It produces high temperature steam suitable for numerous applications, including industrial process heat and high efficiency electricity generation. The safety profile of the SC-HTGR allows it to be collocated with industrial facilities that use high temperature steam. This can open a major new avenue for nuclear power use. The modular design allows plant size to be matched to a range of applications. The SC-HTGR concept builds on Areva’s 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 99 past experience of HTGR projects, as well as on the development and design advances that have taken place in recent years for modular HTGRs. The overall configuration takes full advantage of the work performed on early modular HTGR concepts such as the MHTGR and the HTR-MODUL (IAEA 2016). The HTGR steam cycle concept is extremely flexible. Since high pressure steam is one of the most versatile heat transport mediums, a single basic reactor module configuration designed to produce high temperature steam is capable of serving a wide variety of near-term markets. The steam cycle is also well suited to co-generation of electricity and process heat.

2.4.3.4 Fast Neutron Reactors

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

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

Each PRISM power block consists of two modules of 311 MWe (840 MWth) each, (or, earlier, three modules of 155 MWe, 471 MWth), each with one steam generator, that collectively drive one turbine generator. The pool-type modules below ground level contain the complete primary system with sodium coolant at about 500 °C. An intermediate sodium loop takes heat to steam generators. The metal Pu and DU fuel is obtained from used light water reactor LWR fuel. All transuranic elements are removed together in the electrometallurgical reprocessing so that fresh fuel has minor actinides with the plutonium and uranium. PRISM have two versions: For the LWR fuel recycle version, fuel stays in the reactor four years, with one-quarter removed annually and for breeder version fuel stays in the reactor about six years, with one-third removed every two years (WNA 2016). The nuclear power plant design life is 60 years. Specific design features include the use of electromagnetic pumps. Transportability is enhanced by the modular construction sized for trucks and rail. Special benefits of the design are flexibility allowing use for either waste management or resource utilisation missions and the co-location of a small recycling centre (TRP 2012). In 2011, GE Hitachi announced that it was shifting its marketing strategy to pitch the reactor directly to utilities as a way to recycle excess plutonium while producing electricity for the grid. (2) CEFR

The CEFR is a sodium cooled, 65 MWth experimental fast reactor with PuO2– UO2 fuel, but with UO2 as the ﬁrst loading. It has been operating since 2010 and it is an important part of China’s reactor development. The main objective of the CEFR is to accumulate experience in fast reactor design, fabrication of components, construction, pre-operational testing, and operation and maintenance (WNA 2016). (3) Integral Fast Reactor (ARC-100) Advanced Reactor Concepts LLC (ARC) is commercialising a 100 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor based on the 62.5 MWth Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II).7 The ARC-100 system comprises a uranium alloy core submerged in sodium. The liquid sodium is passed through the core where it is heated to 510 °C, then passed through an integral heat exchanger (within the pool) where it heats sodium in an intermediate loop, which in turn heats working ﬂuid for electricity generation. It would have a refuelling interval of 20 years. A 50 MWe version of the ARC is also under development (WNA 2016). (4) Rapid-L A small-scale nuclear power reactor design developed by Japan’s Central Institute of Electric Power Industry is the 5 MWth, 200 kWe Rapid-L, using lithium-6 (a neutron poison) as control medium. The reactivity control system is passive, using lithium expansion modules (LEMs) which give burn-up

7The EBR-II was a significant fast reactor prototype at Idaho National Laboratory. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 101 compensation, partial load operation as well as negative reactivity feedback. During normal operation, lithium-6 in the LEM is suspended on an inert gas above the core region. As the reactor temperature rises, the lithium-6 expands, moving the gas/liquid interface down into the core and hence adding negative reactivity. Cooling is by molten sodium. The refuelling would be every 10 years in an inert gas environment. Operation would require no skill, due to the inherent safety design features. The whole plant would be about 6.5 m high and 2 m diameter (WNA 2016). The larger RAPID reactor delivers 1 MWe and is U–Pu–Zr fuelled and sodium-cooled. (5) Super-Safe, Small and Simple (4S) The Super-safe, small and simple (4S) ‘nuclear battery’ system is being developed in Japan. It uses sodium as coolant (with electromagnetic pumps) and has passive safety features, notably negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. The whole unit would be factory-built, transported to site, installed below ground level, and would drive a steam cycle via a secondary sodium loop. It is capable of three decades of continuous operation without refuelling. Metallic fuel is uranium-zirconium enriched to less than 20% or U–Pu–Zr alloy with 24% Pu for the 30 MWth (10 MWe) version or 11.5% Pu for the 135 MWth (50 MWe) version. Both versions of 4S are designed to automatically maintain an outlet coolant temperature of 510–550 °C. After 30 years the fuel would be allowed to cool for a year, then it would be removed and shipped for storage or disposal (WNA 2016). The design has one intermediate loop and one secondary loop and utilises two independent diverse shutdown systems: the drop of the annular reflector, and the insertion of a central shut-down rod. The design utilises passive decay heat removal from the reactor vessel. Transportability is via truck or rail (TRP 2012). Toshiba planned a worldwide marketing programme to sell the units for power generation at remote mines, for extraction of tar sands, desalination plants and for making hydrogen. Eventually it expected sales for hydrogen production to out- number those for power supply (WNA 2016). (6) BREST-300 A significant Russian design from NIKIET is the BREST fast neutron reactor, of 700 MWth, 300 MWe, or more with lead as the primary coolant, at 540 °C, supplying supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe and uses a U+Pu nitride fuel. Fuel cycle is 10 months. No weapons-grade plutonium can be produced (since there is no uranium blanket), and used fuel can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site facilities (WNA 2016). BREST-300 is a reactor facility of pool-type design, which incorporates within the pool the reactor core with reflectors and control rods; the lead coolant circulation with steam generators and pumps; equipment for fuel reloading and management; and safety and auxiliary systems. The reactor equipment is arranged in a steel-lined, thermally insulated concrete vault. The BREST decay heat removal systems are characterised by passive and time-unlimited residual heat removal 102 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities directly from the lead circuit by natural circulation of air through air-cooled heat exchangers, with the heated air vented to the atmosphere (Alemberti et al. 2014). A pilot unit was planned to be built at Beloyarsk, and 1200 MWe units are planned. It is at preliminary design stage. (7) SVBR-100 A smaller and newer Russian design is the lead-bismuth fast reactor SVBR-100 of 280 MWth, 100 MWe, being developed. It is an integral design, with 12 steam generators and two main circulation pumps sitting in the same Pb–Bi pool at 340– 490 °C as the reactor core. It is designed to be able to use a wide variety of fuels, though the pilot unit will initially use uranium oxide enriched to 16.3%. The refuelling interval is seven or eight years and 60-year operating life is envisaged. The SVBR-100 unit would be factory-made and transported by railway, road or waterway (WNA 2016). According to UxC Company, the SVBR-100 nuclear power reactor is designed to be used in the remote regions of Russia and can have various power levels and purposes. The nuclear power reactor can be used for co-generation of electricity and process heat (and potentially serve as a power source for desalination) and will be placed in the immediate vicinity of populated areas. The nuclear power reactor can be also used for coastal and offshore nuclear power plant. The designers of the reactor also envisioned for it to be used as part of industrial facilities. One other interesting possible implementation of SVBR reactors is on the sites of the PWR units undergoing decommissioning using the existing infrastructure. Several modules can be used together if more power is required. The plan is to complete the design development and put online a 100 MWe pilot facility by 2019. (8) Gen4 (Hyperion) Power Module The Gen4 Power Module is a 70 MWth/25 MWe lead-bismuth cooled reactor concept using 19.75% enriched uranium nitride fuel, from Gen4 Energy. The reactor was originally conceived as a potassium-cooled self-regulating ‘nuclear battery’ fuelled by uranium hydride. However, in 2009, Hyperion Power changed the design to uranium nitride fuel and lead-bismuth cooling to expedite design certification. This now classes it as a fast neutron reactor, without moderation. The company claims that the ceramic nitride fuel has superior thermal and neutronic properties compared with uranium oxide. Enrichment is 19.75% and operating temperature about 500 °C. The unit would be installed below ground level (WNA 2016). The nuclear power reactor design life is 30 years. The design has one primary loop and one secondary loop and utilises two independent shutdown systems. The design utilises passive natural circulation for decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with water as the ultimate heat sink. Specific design features include containing the reactor in a sealed cartridge to avoid onsite refuelling, a primary shutdown system with inner and outer B4C control rods and a secondary shutdown system having a central cavity into which a single B4C control may be inserted. The 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 103 nuclear power reactor is transported via truck, ship or rail. Special benefits of the design include passive decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with a water jacket and the ability to operate in remote locations (TRP 2012). This type of nuclear power reactor is designed to operate for electricity or process heat (or co-generation) continuously for up to 10 years without refuelling. Another unit could then take its place in the overall nuclear power plant. In March 2012, the U.S. DoE signed an agreement with Hyperion regarding constructing a demonstration unit at its Savannah River site in South Carolina (WNA 2016). (9) Encapsulated Nuclear Heat-Source (ENHS) The ENHS is a liquid metal-cooled reactor concept of 50 MWe. The reactor core is at the bottom of a metal-filled module sitting in a large pool of secondary molten metal coolant, which also accommodates the eight separate and unconnected steam generators. The whole reactor sits in a 17-metre-deep silo. The fuel is a uranium-zirconium alloy with 13% enrichment (or U–Pu–Zr with 11% Pu) (WNA 2016). The ENHS has a very long reactor core life (15–20 years), and it uses natural circulation to cool the reactor and to produce steam to drive the turbine. The ENHS concept relies on autonomous control that is, after the reactor is brought to full power, variation in power output follow the electricity generating needs automatically (load following) by using temperature feedback from the varying steam pressure and feedwater flow. The ENHS concept is based on the idea of encap- sulating the reactor core inside its own vessel as a module, with no external piping connections (U.S. Department of Energy 2001). The ENHS module is manufactured and fuelled in the factory, and shipped to the site as a sealed unit with solidified Pb (or Pb–Bi) filling the vessel up to the upper level of the fuel rods. With no mechanical connections between the reactor module and the secondary system, the module is easy to install and replace, similar to using a battery. After installation, hot coolant is pumped into the vessel to melt the solid lower part. At the end of its life, the ENHS module could be removed from the reactor pool and stored on site until the decay heat drops to a level that lets the coolant solidify. The module with the solidified coolant would then serve as a shipping cask. Its compact, sealed design combined with very infrequent refuelling provides high proliferation resistance (U.S. Department of Energy 2001). The ENHS is designed for developing countries and is highly proliferation- resistant, but is not yet close to commercialisation. (10) Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor (START) STAR-LM, STAR-H2, Small STAR (SSTART) START reactor is being designed by Argonne National Laboratory and its portfolio consists of three designs: 1) Small STAR; 2) STAR-LM, where LM stands for liquid metal; and 3) STAR-H2 design, where H2 stands for hydrogen 104 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities production. Main components of STAR-H2 vessel are presented in the work of Wade and Peddicord (2002). According to WNA (WNA 2016), the STAR-LM is a factory-fabricated fast neutron modular reactor cooled by lead-bismuth eutectic, with passive safety features. Its 300–400 MWth size means it can be shipped by rail. It uses uranium-transuranic nitride fuel in a cartridge which is replaced every 15 years. Decay heat removal is by external air circulation. The STAR-LM was conceived for power generation with a capacity of about 175 MWe. The STAR-H2 is an adaptation of the same nuclear power reactor for hydrogen production, with reactor heat at up to 800 °C being conveyed by a helium circuit to drive a separate thermochemical hydrogen production plant, while lower grade heat is harnessed for desalination (multi-stage flash process). Its development is further off. SSTAR has lead or Pb–Bi cooling, 564 °C core outlet temperature and has integral steam generator inside the sealed unit, which would be installed below ground level. Conceived in sizes 10–100 MWe, main development was focused on a 45 MWth/20 MWe version as part of the U.S. Generation IV effort. Some notable features of SSTAR include reliance on natural circulation for both operation and shutdown heat removal; a very long core life without refuelling (after a 20 or 30-year life without refuelling, the whole reactor unit is the returned for recycling the fuel); and an innovative supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) Brayton cycle power conversion system (Alemberti et al. 2014). The main mission of the SSTAR is to provide incremental energy generation to match the needs of developing nations and remote communities without grid connections. A prototype was envisaged for 2015, but development has apparently ceased. (11) LBE Cooled Long-Life Safe Simple Small Portable Proliferation- Resistant Reactor (LSPR) The Lead Bismuth Eutectic Cooled Fast Reactor of 150 MWth/53 MWe, the LSPR, is under development in Japan. The concept is intended for developing countries (WNA 2016). According to UxC, the LSPR could be used for electricity generation, seawater desalination, hydrogen production, process steam production, among others. The LSPR is a factory fabricated design and it is designed to operate without on-site refuelling during the whole reactor life (30 years), then it is returned. The type of fuel used in this reactor is nitride with a fuel enrichment of 10–12%. (12) Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor (SEALER) SEALER is a lead-cooled reactor designed with the smallest possible core that can achieve criticality in a fast spectrum using 20% enriched uranium oxide (UOX) fuel. The nuclear power reactor is a 8 MWth, with a peak electric power of 3 MWe, leading to a reactor core life of 30 full power years (at 90% availability). The reactor vessel is designed to be small enough to permit transportation by aircraft (WNA 2016). 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 105

2.4.3.5 Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)

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

Fig. 2.16 Molten Salt Reactor (SmATHR). Source Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2010) 106 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(1) Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (Flibe LFTR) Flibe LFTR or LFTR is under development in the USA and is a 40 MW two-fluid graphite-moderated thermal reactor with a reactor outlet temperature of 450 °C. It uses lithium fluoride/beryllium fluoride (FLiBe) salt as its primary coolant in both circuits. Fuel is U-233 bred from thorium in FLiBe blanket salt. Fuel salt circulates through graphite logs. Secondary loop coolant salt is sodium-beryllium fluoride (BeF2-NaF) (WNA 2016). The nuclear power reactor design life is five to ten years. The design utilises passive decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with water in the underground silo as the ultimate heat sink. Specific design features include underground location of the reactor and primary heat exchanger is made of liquid-silicon-impregnated carbon-carbon composites. Transportability is via barge or truck. Many quantitative aspects of the design have not yet been determined (TRP 2012). A 2 MWth pilot nuclear power plant is envisaged to be built in the future (WNA 2016). (2) Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR) China is building a 5 MWe TMSR, essentially an LFTR. China claims to have the world’s largest national effort on these and hopes to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology. The target date for TMSR deployment is 2032 (WNA 2016). (3) Fuji MSR The Fuji MSR is a 100–200 MWe graphite-moderated design developed internationally by a Japanese, Russian, and U.S. consortium. According to UxC Company, the basic technology of the nuclear power reactor includes the use of molten salt coolant in a graphite moderated core. The nuclear power reactor operates at a near-breeding level with a mix of Th and U-233 fuel, although it can also use U-Pu MOX fuel. Several variants have been designed, including a 10 MWe mini Fuji. Thorium Tech Solutions Inc (TTS) plans to commercialise the Fuji concept and is working on it with the Halden test reactor in Norway (WNA 2016). (4) Advanced High-Temperature Reactor (AHTR/FHR) Research on molten salt coolant has been revived with the AHTR. This uses a coated-particle graphite-matrix fuel and with molten fluoride salt as primary coolant. It is also known as the Fluoride High Temperature Reactor (FHR). While similar to the gas-cooled HTR it operates at low pressure (less than 1 atmosphere) and higher temperature, and gives better heat transfer than helium. The FLiBe salt is used solely as primary coolant (WNA 2016). The AHTR pursues three design goals: High reactor-coolant exit temperatures (700–100 °C) to enable the efficient production of hydrogen by thermochemical cycles and the efficient production of electricity; passive safety systems for public acceptance and reduce costs; and competitive economics. To achieve competitive economics, the AHTR is a large nuclear power reactor with passive safety systems 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 107 and high temperatures. The high temperatures minimise the size of the safety systems and power conversion equipment per kilowatt (electric) output (Forsberg 2004). A 5 MW thorium-fuelled prototype is under construction at Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Applied Physics in China with a target for operation by 2020. A 100 MWth demonstration pebble-bed power plant with open fuel cycle is planned by about 2025. (5) IMSR This simplified IMSR integrates the primary reactor components, including primary heat exchangers to secondary clean salt circuit, in a sealed and replaceable core vessel that has a projected life of seven years. The IMSR will operate at 600– 700 °C, which can support many industrial process heat applications in Canada. The fuel-salt is a eutectic of low-enriched uranium fuel (UF4) and a fluoride carrier salt at atmospheric pressure. Emergency cooling and residual heat removal are passive. Each plant would have space for two nuclear power reactors, allowing seven-year changeover, with the used unit removed for off-site reprocessing when it has cooled and fission products have decayed (WNA 2016). According to IAEA-ARIS (2016), the reactor core of the ISMR is manufactured in a controlled factory environment and then brought to the nuclear power plant site where, following final assembly, it is lowered into a surrounding, annular buffer salt tank, which itself sits in a below grade reactor silo. There, the reactor core is connected to secondary piping, which contains a non-radioactive coolant salt. The fuel is separately brought to the nuclear power plant site as a solid, where it is melted and added to the ISMR core. This allows the ISMR operates with online fuelling. Additionally, and unlike solid-fuel nuclear power reactors, there is no need to remove a proportion of old fuel during refuelling. All of the fuel stays inside the closed ISMR core during the entire power operations period of the reactor core. Unlike other nuclear power reactor systems, the ISMR core needs never be opened at the nuclear power plant site, either during star-up fuelling or during refuelling. The basic design approach to safety in the ISMR is to achieve an inherent, walk-away safe nuclear power plant. No operator action, electricity, or externally- powered mechanical components are needed to assure the most basic safety functions. The IMSR is scalable and three sizes are under development: 80 MWth, 300 MWth and 600 MWth, ranging 30 MWe–300 MWe, but a 2016 report from the company gives 400 MWth and 192 MWe (WNA 2016). It is expected that the first commercial nuclear power reactor is ready by the early 2020s. (6) Transatomic TAP Transatomic Power Corp is a new U.S. company partly funded by Founders Fund and aiming to develop a single-fluid MSR using very low-enriched uranium fuel (1.8%) or the entire actinide component of used LWR fuel. The TAP nuclear power reactor has an efficient zirconium hydride moderator and a LiF-based fuel 108 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities salt bearing the UF4 and actinides, hence a very compact reactor core (WNA 2016). After a 20 MWth demonstration reactor, the envisaged first commercial plant will be 1250 MWth/550 MWe. (7) ThorCon This is a single-fluid thorium converter reactor in the thermal spectrum, graphite moderated with a capacity of 250 MWe. It uses a combination of U-233 from thorium and U-235 enriched from mined uranium. Fuel salt is sodium-beryllium fluoride (BeF2-NaF) with dissolved uranium and thorium tetrafluorides (Li-7 fluoride is avoided for cost reasons). There is no on-line processing—this takes place in a centralised plant at the end of the reactor core life—with off-gassing of some fission products meanwhile. All components are designed to be easily and frequently replaced. It is expected an operating prototype by 2020 (WNA 2016). (8) Molten Stable Salt Reactor (MSSR) MSSR is a conceptual UK nuclear power reactor design with no pumps and relies on convection from vertical fuel tubes in the reactor core at the center of a tank holding the primary coolant, while a secondary salt coolant conveys heat to the steam generators. Reactor core temperature is 500–600 °C, at atmospheric pressure. Decay heat is removed by natural air convection. A 150 MWth pilot plant is envisaged in the coming years (WNA 2016). (9) Seaborg Waste Burner—SWAB Seaborg Technologies in Denmark has a thermal-epithermal single fluid reactor design for 50 MWth pilot unit with a view to 250 MWth commercial modular units fueled by spent LWR fuel and thorium. Fuel salt is Li-7 fluoride with thorium, plutonium and minor actinides as fluorides. Fission products are extracted on-line (WNA 2016). (10) Molten Salt Thermal Wasteburner (MSTW) The Seaborg Technologies’ MSTW is a thermal spectrum, single salt, MSR, operated on a combination of spent nuclear fuel and thorium. It is envisioned to produce 100 MWe, or 115 MWe with a two stage turbine, from 270 MWth. The reactor core outlet temperature is 700 °C, but can go as high as 900 °C for special uses, such as hydrogen production. The MSTW is designed around inherent safety features; no active measures are required to control the reactor under abnormal circumstances (IAEA 2016). According to Seaborg Technologies (2015), one novel safety feature of the MSTW is the use of an overflow system in addition to the commonly used salt plug system. This safety system prevents meltdowns, hinder accidents from human operator error, automatically shuts down in case of out of scope operation conditions, and flushes the fuel inventory to a passively cooled and sub-critical dump tank below the core vessel in case of loss of operation power. 2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 109

The reactor relies on a novel on-board chemical fluoridation flame reactor, which can continually extract fission products from the salt during operation. The flame reactor is also used to adjust the fuel levels in the salt such that no absorbing control rods are needed during normal operations; this facilities a better neutron economy in the reactor. The fully modularised MSTW is suitable for mass production. As a module reaches the end of its lifecycle, it will be extracted and returned for recycling in a central production facility after it has cooled down. The reactor core, including the graphite-based moderator, is projected to have a lifecycle of seven years, while the power plant will operate on the same batch of spent nuclear fuel for the 60 year facility lifetime. The MSTW is in the early design phase and Seaborg Technologies is focused primarily on neutronics, radiative transfer, computational fluid dynamics, and the physics of the design (IAEA 2016). The MSTW is designed for electricity production, district heating/cooling, sea water desalination, among others. Due to the high outlet temperature it is well suited for synthetic fuel, as well as industrial process heat applications. Its high burnup and the fact that it is fuelled directly with spent nuclear fuel makes it a good option for spent nuclear fuel stockpile reduction. However, it can, without modi- fication, operate on a wide array of different fuels. (11) SmAHTR According to Greene et al. (2010), SmAHTR is a 125 MWth, integral primary system FHR concept. The design goals for SmAHTR are to deliver safe, affordable, and reliable high-temperature process heat and electricity from a small nuclear power plant that can be easily transported to and assembled at remote sites. The initial SmAHTR concept is designed to operate with a nuclear core outlet temperature of 700 °C, but with a system architecture and overall design approach that can be adapted to much higher temperature as higher-temperature structural materials become available. The SmAHTR reactor vessel is transportable via standard tractor-trailer vehicles to its deployment location. SmAHTR employs a “two-out-of-three system” philosophy for operational and shutdown decay-heat removal. Transition from operational power production to shutdown decay-heat removal is accomplished without active components, employing passive systems relying on natural convection, and the reactor core is designed with large negative reactivity feedback coefficients. The SmAHTR concept has been developed with three potential operating modes: 1) Process heat production, 2) Electricity production, and 3) A combined co-generation mode in which both electricity and process heat are produced. The nuclear core and all primary components are contained in the reactor vessel (integral design). This design eliminates the large break loss-of-coolant accident scenario. The use of an innovative liquid-salt thermal energy storage system or “salt vault” expands the flexibility and applicability of the SmAHTR reactor for all applications. The salt vault offers the potential to combine multiple SmAHTR reactor modules to meet thermal and electricity demands, a robust capability to 110 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities buffer the reactors and processes heat load from transients, and the ability to buffer multi-reactor module installations from upset within a single reactor. As a high-temperature system, SmAHTR is potentially compatible with several highly efficient power conversion technologies. The most attractive options for power conversion systems are Rankine and Brayton cycle technologies. (12) Mark 1 Pebble-Bed Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature-Reactor (Mk1 PB-FHR) The Mk1 PB-FHR design is the first integrated FHR design to propose driving a nuclear air-Brayton combined cycle for base-load electricity generation. The purpose of the Mk1 FB-FHR design is to provide efficient and highly flexible power output and grid support services, and therefore to enable a new value proposition for nuclear power. The 236 MWth Mk1 PB-FHR uses a General Electric 7FB gas turbine, modified to introduce external heating and one stage of reheat, in combined-cycle configuration to produce 100 MWe under base-load operation, and with natural-gas co-firing to rapidly boost the net power output to 242 MWe to provide peaking power (Andreades et al. 2014). The Mk1 PB-FHR is designed so that all components (including the reactor vessel, gas turbine, and building structural sub-modules) can be transported by rail, enabling modular construction. Sub-module fabrication and delivery occur in parallel with module assembly and plant civil construction at the reactor site (Andreades et al. 2014). The configuration of the Mk1 PB-FHR places the reactor and coiled tube air heaters slightly below grade, and allows the reactor building to be separated from the power conversion system so the reactor can be located inside the plant protected area, while the power conversion system is in the owner-controlled area that requires a lower level of physical protection (Hong et al. 2014). The Mk1 PB-FHR is designed with advanced passive safety features and intrinsic fuel and coolant properties, which make the consequences of severe accidents much easier to manage.

2.4.3.6 Others Types of SMR

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

2.4.3.7 Hurdles that Must Be Overcome for the Deployment of the SMRs

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

2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

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

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

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

2.5.1 Plasma Conﬁnement and Its Devices

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

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

Fig. 2.17 Tokamak principle. Source European Nuclear Society (2016)

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

Fig. 2.18 Stellarator principle. Source CIEMAT 116 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

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

2.5.2 Fusion Reactor Projects

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

Table 2.5 Total number of fusion experimental devices by conﬁnement method

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

2.6 Conclusions

In the coming years several countries will need more electrical power installed to satisfy the foreseeable increase in the electricity demand necessary to support the new industrial development in developed countries, and for the support of the economic boost in developing countries to continue their deployment. The increase use of fossil fuel to satisfy the growth in electricity demand in several countries enhance the concern about climate change and emergency requirement of curbing the emissions of greenhouse gases effect. In this future situation, nuclear energy has a great opportunity to increase its participation in the energy mix in developed and developing countries alike. The other alternative energy source that can play an important role in the structure of the energy mix of many countries is the so-called “renewable energies”. However, this type of energy source cannot assure a continuous energy supply due to its dependency of weather conditions and storages equipment to stock up the excess energy generated when the power plants are in full operation. With the intention of enlarging its participation in the energy mix in several countries, nuclear energy industry and institutions are carrying out a great effort in the development of new technologies and type of nuclear power reactors. Fruits of 118 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities this effort three lines of investigation can be identiﬁed: European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), Generation IV of nuclear power reactors, and SMRs. Today several EPR reactors (Generation III+ reactor) are under construction and although much is expected of the EPRs, great size of the nuclear power reactors with evolutionary design and improved safety characteristics, and better use of fuel, continuous delays and overruns in their construction are affecting their acceptance in the energy global market. On the other hand, SMRs have drawn attention because of their size (300 MW or less compared to large reactor 1100–1600 MW); their many useful applications, including generating emission-free electricity in remote locations, where there is little or no access to the main power grid, and in providing heat for industrial applications; their modular design, which means they can be manufactured in a factory and delivered and installed at the sites in modules as needed based on electricity demand growth; and their construction on a smaller scale, reducing the upfront costs of building a nuclear plant power plant and shrinking the time needed to build it. But if the world really want to change the economics of nuclear energy, then it will need to fundamentally change how nuclear power plants operate. That is where Generation IV reactors come in. These new designs alter the kinds of fuel and coolant that would be used, experimenting with mixes that potentially offer inherit safety, greater efﬁciency, and less waste.

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 Background

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

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

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 123 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_3 124 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular … reactors under construction in the region are mostly large units (more than 1000 MW), except for one SMR in Argentina the so-called “CAREM-25” with a capacity of 25 MW. However, the situation in the U.S. has changed in the last years due to the support of the U.S. government to the development of SMR type of reactor as well as to the construction of new large units. For this reason, in the FY 2012 Administration budget, a new programme for the development and use of SMRs for electricity generation was approved. This would involve obtaining design certification for two light-water SMRs on a cost-share basis with the nuclear industry, with the purpose of accelerating the commercial deployment of this type of reactor in the country. The NRC also requested US$11 million for pre-application work on SMR licensing with two developers leading to filing the design certification applications, and some initial review for one such application. More advanced designs such as metal—or gas—cooled SMRs could get some funds from DoE’s separate Reactor Concepts Research Development and Demonstration Programme, US$30 million of which is envisaged for SMR concepts.

3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation in the United States and Canada

3.2.1 United States

A 2011 report for U.S. DoE prepared by the University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute says “development of small reactors can create an opportunity for the U.S. to recapture a slice of the nuclear technology market that has eroded over the last several decades, due to the lack of any important investment in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the country”. Much recent development in SMR designs has been in the U.S. led first by Westinghouse with variants ranging in size from 50 to 225 MWe. NuScale and mPower gained U.S. DoE funding for their reactor designs. These types of reactors are integral PWRs with the core, steam generators, pumps and pressuriser integrated into one vessel. Most designs make some use of natural circulation cooling for power operation or decay heat removal. Integral construction and passive cooling are significant ways of reducing cost. The same factory that constructs reactor vessels can make the other components and the assembly is delivered to site either by barge or rail. Similar features are present in other SMR designs from Russia (VBER 300), China (ACP100) and South Korea (SMART) (Roulstone 2015), just to mention some of the new designs under development in some countries. It is important to highlight that the economic strategy of SMRs is unproven and for this particularly reason must overcome the lack of economic competiveness of 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 125 the first built reactors. There are several licensing issues that must be dealt with as well, and the export process may be a detriment to developing a strong export process. Until SMRs are built in sufficient volumes, it will remain unclear whether they have conquered the cost problem (Kurth 2013). The investment decision in an industrial activity largely depends on the capability of the project to adequately recover and remunerate the initial capital expenditure. The uncertainty of the capital cost estimation, affects the ability to make a reliable estimation of the investment profitability. The uncertainty affects the scenario conditions, the project realisation and operation; as a result, the stream of income generated by the project is also affected by uncertainty. Therefore, expected profitability has a degree of risk embedded and a series of different possible outcomes, depending on the realisation of stochastic variables. Investment in liberalised electricity markets, as in most of the European and North American countries, compels investors to include uncertainty in their business plan analysis and to give risk as much relevance as profitability into their decision making. The key variables to the financial performance of the investment project are forecast to get a reasonable estimation of the project profitability and economic soundness. For all of the above, nuclear power plants represent a long-term investment with deferred payouts. Moreover, the nuclear industry is very capital-intensive. This means that a high up-front capital investment is needed to set up the project and a long payback period is needed to recover the capital expenditure. The longer this period, the higher is the probability that the scenario conditions may evolve in a different, unfavorable way, as compared to the forecasts. A capital-intensive investment requires the full exploitation of its operating capability and an income stream as stable as possible. On a long-term horizon, a low volatility in a variable trend might translate into a widespread range of realisations of the variable value. This condition is common to every capital-intensive industry. Nevertheless, some risk factors are specific or particularly sensitive to the nuclear industry, typically, the public acceptance, the political support in the long-term energy strategy, the activity of safety, and the work of the regulatory agencies. For these reasons, nuclear investment is usually perceived as the riskier investment option among the power generation technologies, and it is one of the reasons why no nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. in the last decades until 2012. Clearly, risk is not the only or the most relevant criterion in the selection of a power generation technology. Besides risk and cost, other strategic and economic issues are included in a technology investment evaluation, such as the power generation independence, the power density (as compared to the land occupation), the power supply stability (base-load), and the electricity price stability, among others.

3.2.2 Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States

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

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

Table 3.1 (continued) Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) DIABLO PWR AVILA BEACH 1138 1197 1984-11-11 CANYON-1 DIABLO PWR AVILA BEACH 1118 1197 1985-10-20 CANYON-2 DRESDEN-2 BWR MORRIS 894 950 1970-04-13 DRESDEN-3 BWR MORRIS 879 935 1971-07-22 DUANE BWR PALO 601 624 1974-05-19 ARNOLD-1 FARLEY-1 PWR DOTHAN 874 918 1977-08-18 FARLEY-2 PWR DOTHAN 883 928 1981-05-25 FERMI-2 BWR LAGOONA 1122 1198 1986-09-21 BEACH FITZPATRICK BWR OSWEGO 813 849 1975-02-01 FORT PWR FORT 482 512 1973-08-25 CALHOUN-1 CALHOUN GINNA PWR ONTARIO 580 608 1969-12-02 GRAND GULF-1 BWR PORT GIBSON 1419 1500 1984-10-20 HARRIS-1 PWR NEW HILL 928 960 1987-01-19 HATCH-1 BWR BAXLEY 876 911 1974-11-11 HATCH-2 BWR BAXLEY 883 921 1978-09-22 HOPE CREEK-1 BWR SALEM 1172 1240 1986-08-01 INDIAN POINT-2 PWR BUCHANAN 1020 1067 1973-06-26 INDIAN POINT-3 PWR BUCHANAN 1040 1085 1976-04-27 LASALLE-1 BWR MARSEILLES 1137 1207 1982-09-04 LASALLE-2 BWR MARSEILLES 1140 1207 1984-04-20 LIMERICK-1 BWR LIMERICK 1130 1194 1985-04-13 LIMERICK-2 BWR LIMERICK 1134 1194 1989-09-01 MCGUIRE-1 PWR CORNELIUS 1160 1215 1981-09-12 MCGUIRE-2 PWR CORNELIUS 1158 1215 1983-05-23 MILLSTONE-2 PWR WATERFORD 869 918 1975-11-09 MILLSTONE-3 PWR WATERFORD 1229 1280 1986-02-12 MONTICELLO BWR MONTICELLO 647 691 1971-03-05 NINE MILE BWR SCRIBA 613 642 1969-11-09 POINT-1 NINE MILE BWR SCRIBA 1277 1320 1987-08-08 POINT-2 NORTH ANNA-1 PWR MINERAL 948 990 1978-04-17 NORTH ANNA-2 PWR MINERAL 943 1011 1980-08-25 (continued) 128 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.1 (continued) Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) OCONEE-1 PWR OCONEE 846 891 1973-05-06 OCONEE-2 PWR OCONEE 848 891 1973-12-05 OCONEE-3 PWR OCONEE 859 900 1974-09-18 OYSTER CREEK BWR FORKED 619 652 1969-09-23 RIVER PALISADES PWR SOUTH HAVEN 805 850 1971-12-31 PALO VERDE-1 PWR WINTERSBURG 1311 1414 1985-06-10 PALO VERDE-2 PWR WINTERSBURG 1314 1414 1986-05-20 PALO VERDE-3 PWR WINTERSBURG 1312 1414 1987-11-28 PEACH BWR YORK 1308 1412 1974-02-18 BOTTOM-2 COUNTY PEACH BWR YORK 1308 1412 1974-09-01 BOTTOM-3 COUNTY PERRY-1 BWR PERRY 1256 1303 1986-12-19 PILGRIM-1 BWR PLYMOUTH 677 711 1972-07-19 POINT BEACH-1 PWR TWO CREEKS 591 640 1970-11-06 POINT BEACH-2 PWR TWO CREEKS 591 640 1972-08-02 PRAIRIE PWR RED WING 522 566 1973-12-04 ISLAND-1 PRAIRIE PWR RED WING 518 560 1974-12-21 ISLAND-2 QUAD CITIES-1 BWR CORDOVA 908 940 1972-04-12 QUAD CITIES-2 BWR CORDOVA 911 940 1972-05-23 RIVER BEND-1 BWR ST. 967 1016 1985-12-03 FRANCISVILLE ROBINSON-2 PWR HARTSVILLE 741 780 1970-09-26 SALEM-1 PWR SALEM 1169 1254 1976-12-25 SALEM-2 PWR SALEM 1158 1200 1981-06-03 SEABROOK-1 PWR SEABROOK 1246 1296 1990-05-29 SEQUOYAH-1 PWR DAISY 1152 1221 1980-07-22 SEQUOYAH-2 PWR DAISY 1125 1200 1981-12-23 SOUTH TEXAS-1 PWR BAY CITY 1280 1354 1988-03-30 SOUTH TEXAS-2 PWR BAY CITY 1280 1354 1989-04-11 ST. LUCIE-1 PWR FORT PIERCE 982 1045 1976-05-07 ST. LUCIE-2 PWR FORT PIERCE 987 1050 1983-06-13 SUMMER-1 PWR JENKINSVILLE 971 1006 1982-11-16 SURRY-1 PWR GRAVEL NECK 838 890 1972-07-04 SURRY-2 PWR GRAVEL NECK 838 890 1973-03-10 (continued) 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 129

Table 3.1 (continued) Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) SUSQUEHANNA-1 BWR SALEM 1257 1330 1982-11-16 SUSQUEHANNA-2 BWR SALEM 1257 1330 1984-07-03 THREE MILE PWR DAUPHIN 819 880 1974-06-19 ISLAND-1 TURKEY POINT-3 PWR FLORIDA CITY 802 829 1972-11-02 TURKEY POINT-4 PWR FLORIDA CITY 802 829 1973-06-21 VOGTLE-1 PWR WAYNESBORO 1150 1229 1987-03-27 VOGTLE-2 PWR WAYNESBORO 1152 1229 1989-04-10 WATERFORD-3 PWR TAFT 1168 1250 1985-03-18 WATTS BAR-1 PWR SPRING CITY 1123 1210 1996-02-06 WOLF CREEK PWR BURLINGTON 1200 1285 1985-06-12 Total: 99 units Net capacity: 99,185 MW; Units under construction: 5, with a net capacity of 5633 MW Source IAEA-PRIS (2016) (April)

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

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

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

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

2Dramatic cost declines and corresponding growth in solar and wind energy are threatening to upend the economics of even the most cost efﬁcient nuclear power plants. According to Bloomberg (2016), it expects wind and solar to become the cheapest ways of producing electricity in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s. It sees onshore wind costs falling by 41% and solar PV costs dropping by 60% by 2040. Wind and solar will account for 64% of the 8.6 TW of new generating capacity added over the next 25 years, and for almost 60% of the $11.4 trillion invested, it says. 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 131 plants, and the need for an increasingly ﬂexible system threaten the economics of almost all remaining nuclear power reactors. Overall, nuclear power plants are some of the largest individual power plants in the country. The smallest nuclear power reactor in the country has a capacity of 478 MW, larger than most natural gas or coal units. While some nuclear power plants consist of only a single reactor, most nuclear power plants have two reactors while several have three. The largest nuclear power plant in the country, the three-reactor 4.2 GW Palo Verde nuclear generating plant, is the second largest power plant in the entire country.

3.2.3 Types of Small Modular Reactors Under Development in the United States

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

Table 3.3 Types of SMRs under development in the U.S. Design Company Type Modules Total plant Total capital cost per plant output (MWe) (US$ millions) mPower Babcock & LWR 2 360 1800 Wilcox NuScale NuScale Power LWR 12 540 2500 Inc. W-SMR Westinghouse LWR 1 225 1013 SMR-160 Holtec LWR 1 160 800 HPM Hyperion/Gen4 LMR 1 25 100 PRISM GE-Hitachi LMR 4 1244 3200 Source Presentation of Jonathan Hinze, Senior Vice President, International, 5th Annual SMR Summit, April 2015

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

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

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

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

3.2.4 The Commercialisation Programme of Small Modular Reactor Technology in the United States

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

7There are four integral pressurised water SMRs now under development in the U.S.: Babcock & Wilcox’s mPower; NuScale; SMR-160; and the Westinghouse SMR. It is projected that around the year 2035, China will have surpassed America in nuclear energy consumption. According to Kurth (2013), China is projected to have increased its nuclear energy consumption over 800 billion kWh by 2035, equivalent to the entire current output of American nuclear power. In 2015, the U.S. nuclear electricity generated by its nuclear power plants reached 797,178.00 GWh or 19.5% of the total electricity generated by the country in that year (IAEA-PRIS 2016). 8U.S. designed SMRs have considered the issues of transporting large reactor components between factory and site. But they do not appear to have considered offsite manufacture and transport of the rest of the plant so thoroughly. Also, the transport system in the U.S. with its many wide rivers and 134 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular … times, and less strenuous grid requirements will allow more utilities to include nuclear energy in their portfolio, increasing energy diversity and reduction of greenhouse gases that are prevalent in oil, coal, and natural gas usage. In general, it can be said that SMRs could significantly mitigate the financial risk associated with the construction of large nuclear power plants, potentially allowing small units to compete effectively with other energy sources in many countries, including the U.S. However, it is important to highlight that nuclear power’s prospects of achieving its rightful place in the world’s energy provision are very limited unless the nuclear industry and its supporters win the economic battle. It was also argued that economic salvation cannot be achieved without the industry building many standardised and simple nuclear power reactor designs, preferably with several units on each site. What can be done to overcome the problems that the U.S. nuclear industry has with the aim of expanding the nuclear market in the country? According to the U.S. government, the country is projected to increase its nuclear energy consumption by approximately 68 billion kWh by 2035 (Analysis and Projections, EIA 2013). Using the assumption that a 100 MW SMR will be built and operates at 85% capacity, this leads to approximately 91 SMRs to be constructed during the coming decades to fulfill this gap. Regrettably, the current nuclear power programme in the USA is far from reaching this level of construction of this large number of SMRs. The following are three special market opportunities that may provide the additional market pull needed to successfully commercialise SMRs in the U.S.: • The federal government; • International applications; • The need for replacement of existing coal generation power plants. The federal government is the largest single consumer of electricity in the U.S., but its use of electricity is widely dispersed geographically and highly fragmented institutionally (i.e., many suppliers and customers). Current federal electricity procurement policies do not encourage aggregation of the demand, nor do they allow for agencies to enter long-term contracts that are acceptable by suppliers. In addition, federal agencies are required to review and modify electricity purchases to comply with Executive Order 13154 issued by former President Obama on October 5, 2009. The Executive Order calls for reductions in greenhouse gases by all federal agencies, with DoE establishing a target of a 28% reduction by 2020, including greenhouse gases associated with purchased electricity. Without any doubt, SMRs provide an excellent source to meet the President’s Executive Order in addition to the adoption of others relevant measures. Regarding international applications previous studies have documented the potential for a significant export market for SMRs produced in the U.S., mainly for

(Footnote 8 continued) generous gauge rail systems is not replicated elsewhere. If SMRs are to access wider global markets, then other transport considerations need to be assessed (Roulstone 2015). 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 135 developed countries that do not have in some regions the demand or the necessary infrastructure to accommodate GW-scale LWRs. Clearly substantial upgrades in all facets of infrastructure requirements, particularly in the safety and security areas, would have to be made. In addition, to the above it is important that the U.S. offers a good financial scheme in order to provide the necessary resources to carry out this important investment not only for the construction of new SMRs inside the country, but in other countries as well. However, it is important to note that, according to Rosner et al. (2011), studies performed by Argonne National Laboratory suggest that SMRs would appear to be a feasible power option for countries that have grid capacity of 2000–3000 MWe, and this positive factor should be in the mind of the U.S. nuclear industry representatives when considering the construction of this type of reactor in some countries. Respect to the need for replacement of existing coal generation power plants, SMRs have the potential to replace existing coal generation power plants that may be retired in light of pending environmental regulations. Several industry studies as well as recent EIA analysis indicate the potential for retirement of 50–100 GWe of existing coal generation units in the U.S. These units are older, smaller (i.e., less than 500 MWe), and less energy efficient than most of the existing coal power plant fleet currently in operation in the country, and lack the environmental controls needed to meet emerging air and water quality, and coal-ash management requirements. Many of these plants could be retired by 2020 (Rosner et al. 2011). This situation is a good business opportunity for the U.S. nuclear industry for the coming decades. Undoubtedly, a commercialisation of SMRs in the U.S. will produce many beneficial attributes that affect the environment, the economy, and the safety and security of the country in a positive way. SMRs provide a great alternative to more carbon intensive energy sources and provide a way to influence foreign countries to use less carbon emitting technology. The commercialisation effort, with an emphasis on export, will be able to positively affect nonproliferation efforts through enhanced relations and the adoption of the U.S. standards through its technology. These excellent reasons explain the advantages to ensuring the U.S. has a place among the world’s SMR producers.

3.2.5 Financing of Small Modular Reactors in the United States

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

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

3.2.6 Market Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors in the United States

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

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

3.2.7 The Need of Small Modular Reactors in the United States

An important area of potential domestic SMR deployment is the overall growing U. S. market and its need for additional generating capacity. The U.S. is projected to increase its nuclear energy consumption by approximately 68 billion kilowatt-hours by 2035 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013) as a result of the closure of several old coal power plants. Using the assumption that a 100 MW SMR is built and operates at 85% capacity, this leads to approximately 91 SMRs fulfilling this gap. However, the lack of sufficient funds to support the development of prototypes of different SMRs now under research and development, and a lack of a clear government nuclear energy policy, are making more difficult any recovery for the U.S. nuclear industry and the closure of the abovementioned gap. The other set of issues surrounding the domestic development of SMRs concerns the initial phase of deployment and exactly how they will fit into the marketplace. As mentioned, there are several markets that could utilise SMRs, and each has its own set of issues. The general domestic market for nuclear energy is a relatively flat and slow growth over the development and deployment period of SMRs (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013). It will be largely dictated by the domestic price of natural gas which currently is very low. Nuclear and all other 138 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular … energy source cannot compete with the low cost of natural gas at the moment. However, natural gas prices are volatile and subject to possible carbon legislation, which nuclear and other renewables are not (Rosner et al. 2011). It will be necessary to determine what cost society is willing to pay for cleaner energy and how much energy utilities value energy diversification. Under optimal scenarios, higher natural gas prices and clean energy pricing, SMRs will be competitive (Rosner et al. 2011). However, the U.S. does not have a strong recent record of building new nuclear power plants. The year 2012 was the first time a general commercial nuclear power reactor was authorised to be built in over 30 years. It is this combination of uncertainty and history that would suggest this market potential is not ideal. For sure, nuclear energy has many promising benefits to help the U.S. reduce its environmental impact from electricity generation. Nuclear energy while providing approximately 19% of the country electricity, accounted for producing 64% of the U.S. emission free electricity generation (Nuclear Energy Institute 2013). This energy output accounted for approximately 570 million metric tons of carbon dioxide avoidance in the year 2012 (Kroodsma 2013). On the other hand, and for SMRs to increase the probability of achieving a robust commercialisation in the U.S., they must examine and exploit also international markets.9 There is competition of foreign vendors who are currently pursuing SMR technology and there is also the navigation through U.S. export laws. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that several countries have nuclear energy consumption growth rates greater than their total energy consumption growth rates, other than America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013). It is important to highlight that, in the case of the U.S., the international market shows a much stronger case for nuclear development than domestic potential and the trend is to keep this situation without change during the coming years. Finally, it is important to highlight the following: In the U.S., recent attention has focused on SMR designs that have the most in common with the current generation of nuclear power reactor technology. The class of SMRs called “integral pressurised water reactors” (iPWRs)10 is regarded as the least risky regarding

9In the case of the international market it is important to highlight the following: There are four separate American government agencies that are involved in the nuclear export process. The process is difficult to navigate due to the multiple agencies involved. It also is opaque at times due to the DoE’s lack of a modern application system, which would allow real time tracking. It is inefficient, which results in long approval times, and it is more restrictive in its controls than many other foreign counterparts. The inefficiencies stem from the multiple agencies involved, which can create communication and coordination errors between agencies. There is also a lack of dedicated staff in the DoE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. The staff currently is comprised of three individuals who also have other responsibilities (Glasgow et al. 2016). 10The “integral” in iPWR refers to the characteristic that certain systems, structures, and components (SSCs)—notably the steam generators, control rod drive mechanisms, and pressuriser— are integrated into the reactor pressure vessel containing the nuclear fuel. In current-generation large PWRs, such SSCs are external to the pressure vessel. There is no technical reason that would 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 139 development, licensing, and commercial deployment, even though they still have many unique attributes that will require careful analysis (Lyman 2013). This criterion could limit the possibility of the use of other types of SMRs currently under research and development for electricity generation during the coming years.

3.2.8 Public Opinion Regarding the Use of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in the United States

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

(Footnote 10 continued) prevent designers from integrating the SSCs into the pressure vessels of large PWRs. However, such hypothetical large integral pressure vessels would not be compatible with factory production because they would be too heavy to transport to reactor sites (using current methods), and therefore would have to be built on site. The integral design of small iPWRs has advantages and disadvantages. A potential safety benefit is that the design eliminates large-diameter piping outside of the reactor vessel, thus eliminating the possibility of a large-break loss-of-coolant accident from a ruptured pipe. (Such accidents are relatively low-probability events, so the reduction in overall risk may not be very significant). Of concern, incorporating the steam generators into the same space as the reactor core requires compact and sometimes novel geometries, such as helical coils. That increases the intensity of the radioactive environment in which the generators must operate, and could affect such issues as corrosion and also make the generators much more difficult to inspect and repair (Lyman 2013). 140 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular … nuclear power plants are safe and secure, and would support adding a new unit at the nearest nuclear power plant. Most respondents gave reliability, affordability and clean air top importance for electricity production, and strongly associate nuclear energy with those attributes. In September 2013, among eight considerations for the way electricity is produced, 82% gave top importance to reliability and 82% also to clean air. Large majorities also gave top importance to affordability (78%), efficiency (76%), energy independence (73%), job creation (67%), and economic growth (65%). Only 51% gave top importance to climate change solution as a consideration in electricity generation. Internationally, 75% thought that the U.S. nuclear industry should play a leading role in world markets. A more general March 2010 Gallup poll on energy showed 62% in favor of using nuclear energy for electricity generation, including 28% strongly so, and 33% against, the most favorable figures since Gallup began polling the question in 1994. An early March 2011 Gallup poll just before the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident showed 57% in favor and 38% against, and in March 2012 still 57% were in favor with 40% against (men: 72–27%, women 42–51%). There was a temporary reduction in support for a year or so after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, but a September 2011 Bisconti-GfK Roper survey found that 82% of Americans believed that lessons had been learned from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and 67% of respondents considered U.S. nuclear power plants safe (the same level as reported one month before the nuclear accident occurred). Also 85% of said that an extension of commercial operation should be granted to those nuclear power plants that comply with federal safety standards, and 59% believed that more nuclear power plants should be built in the future with the purpose of reducing the participation of coal in the energy mix of the country. A Bisconti-Quest poll carried out in March 2014 highlighted that 94% of Americans favored a diversified electricity mix, and 74% said nuclear energy will be important in the years ahead. In ranking attributes of electricity supply, 83% nominated reliability, 80% clean air, 77% affordability and 76% efficiency. Overall 63% favored nuclear power as a source of U.S. electricity and 34% opposed it, the positive figure being a 6% drop from September 2013. In October 2014, 61% believed that more nuclear plants should be built in the future. A March 2015 Bisconti-Quest poll showed 68% in favor to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation with 30% opposed, 78% considered nuclear energy important for the future, 83% said reliability and 82% clean air attributes were of top importance. Also 79% agreed that U.S. nuclear power plants were safe and secure. Regarding energy diversity, 96% said it was important to maintain this. Another March 2015 poll carried out by Gallup showed that some 51% of U.S. citizens favor the use of nuclear energy for the country’s electricity generation, with 43% opposing it. The pro-nuclear figure was slightly down on the 53% recorded by Gallup in 2013, with the percentage opposing nuclear unchanged. Support peaked at 62% in 2010 and Gallup describes current support as “on the low end” of its findings over the past 20 years: only the 46% support recorded in 2001 was lower. 3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 141

A September 2015 poll by Bisconti showed 64% of Americans were in favor of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and 33% opposed. Nuclear energy was well recognised among the 83% supporting low-carbon energy sources, and 73% associated it with clean air. After a factual prompt, 84% said nuclear energy should be more important in the future. Other figures were in line with previous surveys. A January 2016 major poll carried out by the University of Texas on energy questions showed an increase in support for nuclear power from 2015, to 39% support compared with 26% opposing and 35% ambivalent or unsure. A March 2016 Gallup poll focused on environmental hazards showed a decrease in support, 54% opposing and 44% supporting the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. This compared with its 2015 figures of 51% support and 43% against. Gallup considered that reduced concern about energy security accounted for the change. Finally, a March-April poll by Bisconti-Quest showed that only one-fifth felt well-informed about nuclear energy and among these 75% were in favor of it and 18% against. After learning that nuclear energy is the only large-scale source of clean air energy, 86% said it should be an important energy source in the future. This included 59% of respondents who initially said they oppose to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. Overall 82% supported taking advantage of all low-carbon energy sources, 69% agreed that nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. are safe and secure, and 82% supported license renewal of plants continuing to meet safety standards.

3.3 Canada

3.3.1 Current Nuclear Power Plants Operating in Canada

Canada currently operates 19 CANDU power reactors at four different provinces, providing around 16.60% of national electricity output in 2015. Table 3.4 includes all nuclear power reactors operating in Canada in 2016. The sites of the nuclear power plants currently operating in Canada is shown in Fig. 3.2. In Canada, there is only one type of nuclear power reactor operating for the electricity generation, the so-called “CANDU reactor”, which is a PHWR type .11 Undoubtedly, nuclear power is an important energy source in Ontario’s industrial heartland and supplies over half the province’s electricity (in 2015 around 60% of the total electricity generated in the province) (Ontario Power Generation 2016).

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

Table 3.4 Nuclear power reactors operating in Canada in 2016 Reactors Name Type Status Location Reference Gross First Grid Unit Electrical Connection Power Capacity [MW] [MW] BRUCE-1 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 760 830 1977-01-14 BRUCE-2 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 730 800 1976-09-04 BRUCE-3 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 750 830 1977-12-12 BRUCE-4 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 750 830 1978-12-21 BRUCE-5 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1984-12-02 BRUCE-6 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 891 1984-06-26 BRUCE-7 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1986-02-22 BRUCE-8 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1987-03-09 DARLINGTON-1 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1990-12-19 NEWCASTLE DARLINGTON-2 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1990-01-15 NEWCASTLE DARLINGTON-3 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1992-12-07 NEWCASTLE DARLINGTON-4 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1993-04-17 NEWCASTLE PICKERING-1 PHWR Operational PICKERING 515 542 1971-04-04 PICKERING-4 PHWR Operational PICKERING 515 542 1973-05-21 PICKERING-5 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1982-12-19 PICKERING-6 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1983-11-08 PICKERING-7 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1984-11-17 PICKERING-8 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1986-01-21 POINT PHWR Operational SAINT JOHN 660 705 1982-09-11 LEPREAU TOTAL 19 13,524 14,482 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

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

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

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

3.3.2 Type and Capacity of Small Modular Reactors to Be Built in Canada

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

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

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

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

Table 3.5 Cost of the electricity by type of energy source Energy by source % of total supply (%) Total unit cost cents per kWh Nuclear 58 6.8 Hydro 23 5.7 Gas 9 14.0 Wind 8 13.3 Solar 2 48.1 Source Ontario Energy Board (OEB), May 2016 Numbers may not equal 100% as they have been rounded

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

3.3.3 The Future Role of Nuclear Power in Canada

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

3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular Reactors in Latin America and the Caribbean

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

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

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

Fig. 3.3 CAREM-25. Source J, Vergara, LAS-ANS Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014

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

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

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

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

Table 3.7 Potential use of SMR in the region in the coming decades Country Option Possibilities in the nuclear ﬁeld Argentina Active Current, in addition to large reactors Colombia Unknown Possibly beyond 2040–50 Chile Unknown Possibly beyond 2020 Brazil Active SMRs in subs, but focus in large reactors Mexico Unknown Focus in large-sized reactors Peru Unknown Possibly beyond 2030 Source J. Vergara, LAS-ANS Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014 around 84% of those surveyed were against the development of a nuclear power programme in Chile, with only 12% in support (HydroWorld.com 2011). There are no serious objection to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in Argentina and Brazil. In Mexico the situation is different regarding the use of nuclear energy for this speciﬁc purpose. 152 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

References

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

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

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

4.1 Introduction

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

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 155 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_4 156 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... clean, cheap, and reliable energy. There is a real role for tidal power, wind, and solar in a balanced energy portfolio in several European countries. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) clearly has significant potential, but is yet to be commercially scalable, while the research work on batteries is likely to be part of the longer term energy mix. From a general point of view, state’s priorities are usually the security of supply and energy independency. However, there is no real electricity supply problem in the particular context of Europe involving all European countries: It is more the case in emerging countries such as China and India with high growth. In Europe, the energy policy is more about climate change, the use of renewable energies for electricity generation and nuclear acceptance (reducing the use of fossil fuels points in the direction of energy independency). Today and within the European scope, the policy driver thus contains three dimensions: • Climate policy, which is divided into two aspects: Carbon policy and renewable policy; – Carbon policy, which will determine the incentives regarding carbon emissions and promote low-carbon energies; – Renewable policy, which is closely related to carbon policy, can be described in Europe by four kinds of tools: feed-in tariffs, green certificates, tenders, and fiscal incentives (Bordier 2008); • Nuclear policy: The use of this energy source can be controversial according to the national context, with the positions of European countries being very different. France has historically adopted a strongly pro-nuclear stance; the importance of the nuclear facilities and expertise inherited from the past should maintain France in a strong pronuclear stance. The U.K. has adopted a moderate pro-nuclear stance, although recent development in the nuclear field in the country shows strong support, as the agreement with EdF for the Hinkley Point C shows (Department of Energy and Climate Change and Prime Minister’sOffice 2013); however, the government’s will never to directly support financially nuclear makes U.K. policy “moderately pro nuclear”. On the other hand, Germany, Italy, and Spain have adopted an anti-nuclear position; for pro-nuclear countries, we add the “strike price” variable to describe the nuclear policy more accurately; • Electricity market reform policy, which will have a direct influence on the investors’ environment and the investors’ profiles themselves. At the same time, recent concerns over global warming have resulted in many governments pledging their nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they generate and new, stricter environmental regulations threaten to close coal-powered plants across Europe, China, and the U.S.. The hope was that massive investments in alternative technologies such as solar and wind power would make up for this cut in generating capacity, but the inefficiencies and intermittent nature of these technologies made it clear that something with the capacity and reliability of coal and natural gas power plants was needed. The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is the only option available. Europe has a lot of experience in using this 4.1 Introduction 157

Table 4.1 Number of nuclear power reactors operating in the European region Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW) Belgium 7 5913 Bulgaria 2 1926 Czech Republic 6 3904 Finland 4 2752 France 58 63,130 Germany 8 10,799 Hungary 4 1889 Netherlands 1 482 Romania 2 1300 Russia 35 25,443 Slovakia 4 1814 Slovenia 1 688 Spain 7 7121 Sweden 10 9648 Switzerland 5 3333 Ukraine 15 13,107 United Kingdom 15 8883 Total 184 162,135 PRIS IAEA January 2016 type of energy for electricity generation and for this reason, should not exclude the use of this type of energy source for electricity generation for non-technical and economic reasons. From Tables 4.1 and 4.2 the following can be stated: 41.6% of the total nuclear power reactors under operation in the world are located in the European region and 24.2% of the nuclear power reactors under construction are constructed in this region. Then, which is the problem with the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in the European region? The problem is that nuclear energy is the proverbial political hot potato, even in early days when the new energy source exploded onto the world scene. The tremendous amount of energy locked in the atom held the promise of a future like something out of a technological Arabian Nights. It would be a world where electricity was too cheap to meter, deserts would bloom, ships would circle the Earth on a lump of fuel the size of a baseball, planes would ﬂy for months without landing, the sick would be healed and even cars would be atom powered. But though nuclear power did bring about incredible changes in our world, in its primary role, generating electricity for homes and industry, it ended up as less of a miracle and more of a very complicated way of boiling water. Not only complicated, but expensive and potentially dangerous, if nuclear safety measures are not adopted and strictly followed by nuclear power plant operators (Szondy 2012). Despite the fact that several hundreds of reactors were built all over the world and many European countries generate most of their electricity from it (see Fig. 4.1), nuclear power has faced continuing questions over cost, safety, waste 158 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.2 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW) Belarus 2 2218 Finland 1 1600 France 1 1630 Russia 8 6582 Slovakia 2 880 Ukraine 2 1900 Total 16 14,810 PRIS IAEA January 2016

Fig. 4.1 Nuclear share of electricity generation in 2015. PRIS-IAEA (2016) 4.1 Introduction 159 disposal, and proliferation. In addition, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, environmental movement has adopted in some European countries a ﬁerce domestic opposition to nuclear power, causing that many governments to take an almost schizophrenic stance regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. Germany, for example, has decided to abandon nuclear power completely by 2022 in favour of the use of alternative energy for electricity generation, but the severe winter of 2011–2012 got so cold that the Danube was freezing and Berlin had to put some of the mothballed nuclear power reactors back into service. This opposition also means that many Western countries have a shortage of nuclear engineers because many see it as a dying industry not worth getting into. This is particularly acute in the U.K., which have not retained the capacity for building the huge reactor vessels and must farm this out to overseas manufacturers. Worse, nuclear power suffers from the natural gas boom brought on by new drilling techniques and fracking that opened up vast new gas ﬁelds in the West and dropped the price of gas to the point where coal and nuclear have a hard time matching it (Szondy 2012). Undoubtedly, the cost of the construction of a nuclear power plant is one of the key problems facing a revival of nuclear power at world level. Up until now, the sort of nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity have tended toward the gigantic with units reaching gigawatt levels of output. With plants that large, small wonder that the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance and meeting legal challenges from environmentalist groups can push the cost of a conventional nuclear power plant toward as much as US$9 billion in some cases.1 It also means very long build times of 10–15 years. This is not helped by the fact that big nuclear power plants are custom designed from scratch in multi-billion dollar exercises, because even if the same type of reactor is used in the construction of a nuclear power plant, the structure of not always the same. With so much time and resources involved, an unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of something like a geological fault under the reactor site can make this a case of putting a lot of very expensive eggs in a very insecure basket. However, and despite the rejection of several European countries to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, there are sound economic and technical reasons for some other European countries to diversify nuclear generation by building a large number of SMRs instead of building a small number of large nuclear

1The European Commission (EC) is calling on Europe’s utility companies to make major investments in nuclear energy in a report which be published in the coming weeks. In its new report on the state of the nuclear industry, the Commission estimated that to secure energy supply across the 28-nation bloc, investments of between €450 and €500 billion are needed in nuclear power by 2050. The report states that because of Europe’s growing electricity needs, nuclear power is unavoidable. Of the sums the report suggested, between €45 and €50 billion would be needed to maintain current nuclear power plants while the rest would need to be invested in building new plants. 160 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... power plants.2 It is a fact that in several European countries, nuclear-powered electricity generation should be a key component of every country’s energy portfolio in order to reduce their dependence on oil and coal for this purpose and of the CO2 emission. In addition, with declining fossil fuel production and reserves in Europe, the continent is increasingly dependent on imported coal and gas and so subject to volatile market prices and the ever-present threat of politically motivated disruption of supply by producers or even countries hosting pipelines.3 In the EU, large power markets exist that are well interconnected. However, large power additions/subtractions can cause grid instabilities. Additionally, future systems will have increasing shares of unpredictable renewable energy sources (mainly wind and solar power) that will affect the electrical grid operation and require a different and more flexible back-up approach. Most SMR concepts are intended for production of baseload power; however, nuclear power can be operated in a load-following mode at some loss (2%) of available capacity (EC 2010). Additionally, some future systems (e.g., MSR) will have the capability to rapidly change power output to support load following. If these nuclear power reactors are cost competitive with gas power plants, they could be used as peak and back-up power units. The EU is also considering a “smart grid” and energy storage systems to allow greater use of decentralised sources of renewable energy, which would also enable economic operation of nuclear power reactors producing baseload electricity. New studies are showing the potential benefit from combining wind and solar energy with nuclear energy on the electricity network (Duffey and Miller 2005). Studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefits of deploying SMRs in systems that contain large shares of renewable energy. Successful integration of these energy technologies would help utilities reduce their planning margins and associated costs for spinning reserves. It is true that the initial investment in new, large-scale nuclear power plants could be a barrier to further development of the nuclear industry in Europe,4 but the initial capital investment in the construction of SMRs is less high that in the case of large nuclear power plants. In addition, nuclear power plants offer sustainable, practical electricity supplies with very low emissions compared with coal-and gas-fired

2However, it is important to highlight that SMRs may compete more directly with diesel, natural gas, hydro, or renewables rather than with large nuclear power plants. 3The relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the form of gas from Russia and Norway and LPG from Qatar are obstacles, as is the decline in oil prices. But it must be remembered that the cost of fossil fuels is volatile, supply issues are politically sensitive, and there are still significant emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. 4The construction of new nuclear power reactors in developed countries, particularly in the EU, has virtually ground to a halt in recent years due to safety fears following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster and because nuclear projects struggle to find financing as they compete with cheaper natural gas and renewable energy. Russia has won nuclear contracts in developing nations with offers of cheap export credits, but in the U.S. and Europe, nuclear projects can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The sole major nuclear new build contract in Europe is for French EdF and Chinese utility CGN to build two reactors in Hinkley Point C, Britain thanks to 35-year subsidies, if finally the U.K. government agree in the implementation of this project. 4.1 Introduction 161 power generation. Around 5 g of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity from a nuclear power plant compares very favourably with as much as 900 g from coal-fired power plants and over 300 g from gas-fired power plants. Finally, it is important to highlight the following: Regrettably, this does not apply to building new nuclear power plants at least in some countries within the EU. Europe in the 21st century will not see a repeat of the political will such as the post-war decision by France to build 58 PWRs, which created a strong supply chain in France and elsewhere. More recently, Asia—and, in particular, China—has demonstrated similar political will, and it could be argued that the European supply chain exists today mainly thanks to China. However, with the emergence of an indigenous nuclear industry in Asia, that market is no longer so attractive to European suppliers and will certainly not maintain the industry and the critical supply chain in Europe for the next decades, if new market in Europe are not open.

4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular Reactors in the European Region

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

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

Table 4.3 Small nuclear power reactors currently in operation Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer EGP-6 11 LWGR At Bilibino, Siberia (cogen) Source WNA

Table 4.4 Small nuclear power reactor designs under construction Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia Source WNA

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

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

4.2.1 The Russian Federation (Russia)

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

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

Fig. 4.2 Types of SMRs. Source IAEA

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

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

Fig. 4.4 Countries considering the use of SMR technology. Source IAEA with ‘non-developer’ nations being considered as growth markets once SMR technology has been proven (Waddington 2014). The total market potential is shown in Table 4.9. According to Table 4.9, Russia has a potential market for SMRs of 10 GW by 2030. The construction of SMRs for external market is also important. The following are the main activities carried out by Russia on SMRs. • KLT-40S: While Russia continues to design and build large nuclear power plants, it is currently developing SMRs for remote applications that can be used within land based or floating nuclear power plants. For example, construction of a pilot floating co-generation plant with two water cooled KLT-40S reactors started in June 2006 and has now neared 95% completion, preparing for commissioning in 2016. Its deployment date will be 2016. The two units of the KLT-40S series, to be mounted on a barge, will be used for co-generation of process of heat and electricity in remote areas7; • ABV-6 M: Another prototype of SMRs under development in Russia is the ABV-6 M with an electrical output of 8.6 MWe. The main objective of the project is to create small, multipurpose nuclear power plant providing easy transport to the site, rapid assembly and safe operation during 10–12 years without refuelling at the berthing platform or on the coast. Currently, the development of ABV-6 M is at the finishing stage (IAEA-ARIS 2014)8;

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

Table 4.7 Installed capacity of SMR versus total grid size Country Grid Size—total installed grid SMR installed SMR as % of grid electricity capacity (MW, IEA capacity (MW, size (2035, projected 2035) 2035, scenario B) Scenario B) China 3,205,366 15,000 0.47 United States 1,299,854 15,000 1.15 Russian 375,097 10,000 2.6 Federation United 122,845 7000 5.7 Kingdom Brazil 226,771 6200 2.73 India 793,567 4800 0.6 Argentina 63,982 2900 4.53 Australia 77,730 2000 2.57 Canada 179,963 1650 0.92 Mexico 109,467 1500 1.37 Finland 21,927 1320 6.02 Indonesia 52,451 1000 1.91 Kazakhstan 30,729 1000 3.25 Saudi Arabia 115,917 700 0.6 South Africa 99,660 600 0.6 Turkmenistan 4679 500 10.69 Lithuania 5022 400 7.97 Chile 28,620 300 1.05 Sweden 47,994 270 0.56 Qatar 11,563 225 1.95 Oman 9149 180 1.97 Tunisia 8223 160 1.95 Jordan 7416 150 2.02 Slovenia 4197 150 3.57 Bahrain 7489 75 1 Mew 656 75 11.43 Caledonia Brunei 1794 50 2.79 Darussalam Source Waddington (2014)

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

Table 4.8 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in Russia in 2016 Reactor Type MNe net, Commercial operation Expected V = PWR each shutdown Balakovo 1 V-320 988 5/1986 2045 Balakovo 2 V-320 1028 1/1988 2033 Balakovo 3 V-320 988 4/1989 2034 Balakovo 4 V-320 988 12/1993 2023 Beloyarsk 3 BN-600 FBR 560 11/1981 2025 Beloyarsk 4 BN-800 FBR 789 (2016) – Bilibino 1–4 LWGR EGP-6 11 4/1974–1/1977 2019–22 Kalinin 1 V-338 950 6/1985 2025 Kalinin 2 V-338 950 3/1987 2032 Kalinin 3 V-320 988 11/2005 2034 Kalinin 4 V-320 950 9/2012 2042 Kola 1–2 V-230 432-411 12/1973, 2/1975 2019, 2020 Kola 3–4 V-230 411 12/1982, 2026, 2039 12/1984512/1982 Kursk 1 and 2 RBMK 1020-971 10/1977, 8/1979 2022, 2024 Kursk 3 RBMK 971 3/1984 2029 Kursk 4 RBMK 925 2/1986 2030 Leningrad 1 RBMK 925 11/1974 2019 Leningrad 2 RBMK 971 2/1976 2021 Leningrad 3 RBMK 971 6/1980 2025 Leningrad 4 RBMK 925 8/1981 2026 Novovoronezh 3 V-179 385 6/1972, 3/19732 2016, 2017 and 4 Novovoronezh 5 V-187 950 2/1981 2035 Smolensk 1 RBMK 925 9/1983 2028 Smolensk 2 RBMK 925 7/1985 2030 Smolensk 3 RBMK 925 1/1990 2024 Rostov 1 320 990 3/2001 2020 Rostov 2 320 990 10/2010 2040 Rostov 3 320 1011 9/2015 2045 Combined years of operation remaining 421 years Source Nuclear Energy Insider

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

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

Table 4.9 Total SMR market potential 2025 2055 USA 7.5 GW U.S. 15 GW Russia 5 GW Russia 10 GW China 2.5 GW China 15 GW Other nations *5 GW Other nations *20 GW UK 0–1.5 GW UK 7 GW–21 GWb Total 20–21.5 GW Total 70 GW/85 GWa Source Waddington (2014) aMid-point ﬁgure for the U.K. based on SMR deployment alongside existing/future plants at currently licensed nuclear sites (approximately 4 GW), plus a small number (approximately 3 GW) of additional SMR deployment at government owned (e.g., former military) sites. bExpanded ﬁgure for U.K. based on ETI projections using the ESME model to understand greater role for nuclear in future lowest cost energy mix.

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

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

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

4.2.1.1 Transition to Fast Power Reactors in Russia

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

12For more information about these two types of SMRs see Chap. 2. 13For more information about these two types of SMRs see Chap. 2. 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 169 project. The first unit, and perhaps the only to be built by Russia, started up in June 2014, with first power to the turbine in November 2015, was connected to the grid in December 2015, reached full power in August 2016, and is expected in commercial operation later in the year. It is 2100 MWt, 864 MWe gross, and 789 MWe net. However, it is important to highlight that the BN-800 is essentially a demonstration unit for fuel and design features for the BN-1200, or as Rosatom said in September 2015: BN-800 has been created for testing elements of closing the nuclear fuel cycle rather than electricity generation. Uralenergostroy, the general civil contractor for both Beloyarsk reactors, sees BN-800 as a bridge to significantly different future designs such as BN-1200, which in 2015 Rosatom described as “by 2025 the first commercial fast neutron power reactor” produced by Russia. Among other things, the BN-800 must answer questions about the economic viability of potential fast reactors, if such a unit has more functions than to generate electricity, then it becomes economically attractive. The Beloyarsk plant director said: “The main objective of the BN-800 is to provide operating experience and technological solutions that will be applied to the BN-1200”. The BN-1200 reactor is being developed by OKBM Afrikantov in Zarechny, and the engineering design is expected to significantly improve upon that of the BN-800. Rosatom sees this as a “Generation IV design with natural security” with closed fuel cycle. It is 1220 MWe gross, with breeding ratio quoted as 1.2–1.4. According to OKBM source, it is expected the first BN-1200 unit with MOX fuel to be commissioned in 2020, then eight more to 2030, moving to dense nitride U-Pu fuel. OKBM earlier envisaged about 11 GWe of BN-1200 nuclear power plants by 2030, including South Urals nuclear power plant where the second BN-1200 will be built. The Chelyabinsk regional government has planned for three units to be built at South Urals nuclear power plant. In November 2013, the Regional Energy Planning Scheme included construction of two BN-1200 units at South Urals by 2030. The government decree of August 2016 specified only one unit instead of three.

4.2.1.2 Russia Plan Export of Nuclear Power Reactors to Other Countries

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

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

4.2.1.3 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Russia

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

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

Table 4.10 (continued) Country Plant Type Estimate Status and financing cost Hungary Paks 5 and 6 2 Â AES-2006 €12.5 Planned, loan organised for billion 80% Slovakia Bohunice V3 1 Â AES-2006 Planned, possible 51% Rosatom equity Jordan Al Amra 2 Â AES-92 US$10 Planned, BOO, finance billion organised for 49.9% Ordered: 15 India Andra Pradesh 6 Â AES-2006 Negotiated in 2015 Bulgaria Belene/Kozloduy 2 Â AES-92 Cancelled, but may be 7 revived Ukraine Khmelnitski completion of US$4.9 Was due to commence 2 Â V-392 million construction 2015, 85% reactors financed by loan, but contract rescinded by Ukraine in 2015 South Thyspunt up to Broad agreement signed, no Africa 8 Â AES-2006 specifics, Russia offers finance, prefers BOO Nigeria AES-2006? Broad agreement signed, no specifics, Russia offers finance, BOO Argentina Atucha 5? AES-2006 Broad agreement signed, no specifics, Russia offers finance, contract expected 2016 Indonesia Serpong 10 MWe HTR Concept design by OKBM Afrikantov Algeria ? ? Agreement signed, no specifics Note AES-91 and AES-92 have 1000 MWe class reactors, AES-2006 have 1200 MWe class reactors Source WNA (2016) costs of fabrication of nuclear power reactor plant equipment, of the installation of reactor plant equipment and systems, and of operation, life extension and repair of the plant. The economic data for these three stages of the study were collected from manufacturers (fabrication), ship building enterprises (installation) and dockyards (repairs), respectively. As a result of the study, it was determined that serial production reduces fabrication costs by 30–35% and installation costs by 20–40%. Apart from the costs of fabrication and installation, the OKBM study also indicated that the costs of repair drop by a minimum of 30%. The Russian SMR programme has the potential to offer a developed technology and to provide the economic benefits of serial production. Consequently, other country could learn from this 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 173 experience and plan the development of its industrial infrastructure in a manner configured to capture the benefits of standardised, serial production. (IAEA STI/PUB/1619 2013). Already operating in a remote corner of Siberia are four small units at the Bilibino co-generation plant. These four 62 MWt (thermal) units are an unusual graphite-moderated boiling water design with water/steam channels through the moderator. They produce steam for district heating and 11 MWe (net) electricity each. They have performed well since 1976, much more cheaply than fossil fuel alternatives in the Arctic region (WNA 2015).

4.2.2 The United Kingdom (U.K.)

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

Table 4.11 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the country (2016) Plant Type Present capacity First power Expected shutdown (MWe net) Dungeness B 1 and 2 AGR 2 Â 520 1983 & 1985 2028 Hartlepool 1 and 2 AGR 595-585 1983 & 1984 2019 or 2024 Heysham I 1 and 2 AGR 580-575 1983 & 1984 2019 Heysham II 1 and 2 AGR 2 Â 610 1988 2023 Hinkley Point B 1 and 2 AGR 475-470 1976 2023 Hunterston B 1 and 2 AGR 475-485 1976 & 1977 2023 Torness 1 and 2 AGR 590-595 1988 & 1989 2023 Sizewell B PWR 1198 1995 2035 Combined years of operation remaining 70 years Source Nuclear Energy Insider 174 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... complete, license, and deploy it. The partnership would be structured as a U.K.- based enterprise jointly owned by Westinghouse, the U.K. government and the U. K. industry. NuScale said “it aims to deploy its SMR technology in the U.K. with local partners, so that the ﬁrst of its 50 MWe units could be in operation by the mid-2020s”. If NuScale supplies 25% of the global SMR market that would mean building between 28 and 38 SMR units per year.

4.2.2.1 Global Support of Small Modular Reactors and Its Impact in the United Kingdom

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

14It is important to answer the following question: How many orders for new SMRs does an SMR vendor need to go the financial markets to get funding to build a factory to make lots of them? The answer, according to David Orr, head of nuclear business development for Rolls Royce in the U. K., which has been making small reactors for the U.K.’s Royal Navy submarine fleet for decades, is a minimum of about four dozen units and six dozen would be better. Those are high numbers which make some proponents of SMRs unhappy. The reason is this estimate means that turning out the first 50 or so SMRs for any firm in the business could be a high wire act. 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 175 current government of U.K. is doing as much as it can to support the technology”.15 To that end, the U.K. government announced US$378 million funding over the next five years for nuclear research and development, including a competition to identify the best value SMR design for the U.K. The U.K. is doubling funding for the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s energy innovation programme to £500 million over five years, including research into SMRs (Yurman 2016). The government said in a policy statement, presented to parliament by Chancellor George Osborne, that the competition will generate a list of SMR developers that could “deliver on the government’s objectives”. The government said it will also publish an SMR delivery roadmap later this year and will allocate at least £30 million for an “SMR-enabling advanced manufacturing R&D programme” to develop nuclear skills capacity. At the time Mr. Osborne said the investment would strengthen future security of supply, reduce the costs of decarbonisation and boost industrial and research capabilities. In January 2016, Fluor Corporation’s NuScale unit, which is seeking to be a pioneer in the SMR market, said the U.K.’s ambitions to build SMRs could be realised as soon as 2025. There are a number of key issues facing SMR deployment in the U.K. that need to be overcome before the first SMR can be deployed. These are the following: • Technical hurdles: The necessity to convince Office for Nuclear Regulation that any design meets the U.K.’s requirements for safety, security, and safeguarding at an economically viable price; • Building the first one: It takes a significant leap of faith for any utility to build the first SMR, particularly when the evidence of support for new nuclear in the U.K. is so limited; • The economic justification: Even though the first SMR will be a fraction of the price of a large nuclear power reactor at £1–2 billion it still represents a huge risk given the technology is yet to be commercially deployed in Europe; • The logistical and political challenges: There remains a host of issues around siting; local, national and international approvals; agreement on a strike price; changes to the way reactors are manned and operated, amongst other things (Waddington 2015). The London-based Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the government announcement. Chief executive Tom Greatrex that said SMRs could potentially play “a significant complementary role to the U.K.’s existing new build

15While NuScale and Westinghouse are targeting construction of their first-of-a-kind units in the U.K. by 2025, the real challenge will be to book enough orders to bring investors to the table to build factories to turn out SMRs on a cost effective production line basis. There is not enough of a market within the U.K. itself to generate these orders. This means both firms likely see the U.K. as a launch pad to gain market share in Europe and the Middle East. Everything depends on both NuScale and Westinghouse passing through the gauntlet of the U.K.’s notoriously complicated and expensive generic design review process to certify the safety of their reactors. Both firms have made optimistic estimates of how long this will take (Yurman 2016). 176 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... programme” and it is welcome that the government is looking seriously at the development of SMRs. He said: “It is important that the roadmap the Chancellor has promised by the autumn maximises the opportunities for U.K. industry.” For this reason, the U.K. government should re-evaluate its nuclear power strategy and provide more resources to accelerate the development and approval of SMR designs so that consumers can benefit from lower costs and the U.K.’s nuclear renaissance can be cemented. While continuing to back EdF’s US$25.6 billion Hinkley Point C EPR project, the U.K. government launched last month phase 1 of its SMR competition to gauge developer and investor interest and plans to publish a roadmap for SMR development later this year. This roadmap must set a clear path towards streamlined GDA procedures for SMR plants and provide further clarity on siting, appropriate to the specific safety cases of the new designs.

4.2.2.2 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in the United Kingdom

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

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

16The U.K. has already pledged £25 million towards a £50 million joint nuclear research and innovation centre with China, which will also be based in the north-west of England. The facility will allow U.K. and Chinese academics and industry experts to work together across the whole nuclear power cycle. 178 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... as well as the electricity grid system, necessary to support the deployment of large nuclear power reactors. In order to satisfy its foreseeable increase in the electric demand in the coming years, the U.K. government has decided to build SMRs in parallel to the construction of large nuclear power plants in closed cooperation with Areva. The arguments used by the U.K. government to support its decision to build SMRs are the following: • Economic and business benefits: A number of U.K. companies have long and successful track records in the global nuclear power industry, as well as strong links to the nation’s universities that have teaching and research activities in the sector. This combination provides a solid foundation on which to build SMR capability, which could potentially gain a share of the future market for these reactors as it emerges globally. However, experience from the U.S. suggests that such an initiative is unlikely to be followed unless there is strong government support, in the form of public funding or the provision of licensed sites for development, or both. The introduction of new overseas export opportunities would be of benefit to the U.K. economy as well as to the local nuclear industry. Similarly, the U.K.’s well established engineering consultancy and civil engineering companies could engage in work associated with SMR construction not only in the country, but also abroad as well. In all cases, this could mean significant employment opportunities for U.K. engineering firms. Further future employment and international commercial opportunities could become available to the U.K.’sOffice for Nuclear Regulation, based upon its worldwide respected reputation. Additionally, the nation’s established nuclear safety and quality assurance consultancy businesses would gain if they were engaged with SMR developments in the U.K.; • SMR contribution to U.K. grid performance: Although it is difficult to fully evaluate the potential benefits to U.K. grid performance at this stage, as planned new large-scale nuclear power plants are deployed on the system in the coming decade, the impact of a power trip on stability will likely become more significant. As an example, approximately two years ago Sizewell B went off line from full power suddenly (tripped) and the subsequent grid disturbance caused Dungeness B to also go off line. The inclusion of an SMR unit or units on a demonstration site on the grid system has the potential to help mitigate this effect when considering a potential U.K. site (Institution of Mechanical Engineers 2014). According to WNN, the U.K. government’s policy to close all coal-fired power plants by 2025, combined with the retirement of the majority of the country’s ageing nuclear power plants and growing electricity demand, will leave the U.K. facing a 40–55% electricity supply gap, according to a new report published today by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The report’s authors make three recommendations. These are the following: • Firstly, that the U.K.’s National Infrastructure Commission should assess the necessary incentives for industry and the public “to reduce the demand on the 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 179

electricity system through engineering efficiencies into processes and equipment, awareness raising and advocacy”; • Secondly, that the commission “must urgently implement changes necessary across the industry and supply chain” to deliver security of electricity supply with no coal-fired power generation. These include investment in research and development activities for renewables, energy storage, combined heat and power and innovation in power plant design and build; • Finally, the government and industry should “review the capacity in the supply chains to deliver the construction of the ‘most likely’ new power infrastructure”. This includes identifying timeframes and milestones for conventional and unconventional power generation build—fossil fuel, nuclear, energy storage, combined heat and power and off-grid options—along with growth in skills and knowledge within the U.K. to meet the potential increase in demand. After almost 20 years without building new nuclear power plants, the first new nuclear power plant built in the U.K., the EdF Energy’s Hinkley Point C, will comprise two EPR reactors, with first operation scheduled for 2025. Together, the two reactors will provide about 7% of the U.K.’s electricity. However, it is important to highlight that the construction of these two units are still under negotiations and there is no sign that the conclusion of these negotiations will end up in a deal to begin the construction of this nuclear power plant anytime soon. According to Jenifer Baxter (2016), Head of Energy and Environment at the Mechanical Engineers Institute, “the U.K. is facing an electricity supply crisis. As the U.K. population rises and with the greater use of electricity use in transport and heating it looks almost certain that electricity demand is going to rise. However, with little or no focus on reducing electricity demand, the retirement of the majority of the country’s ageing nuclear fleet, recent proposals to phase out coal-fired power by 2025 and the cut in renewable energy subsidies, the U.K. is on course to produce even less electricity than it does at the moment.” She added: “Currently there are insufficient incentives for companies to invest in any sort of electricity infrastructure or innovation and worryingly even the government’s own energy calculator does not allow for the scenarios that new energy policy points towards. Under current policy, it is almost impossible for U.K. electricity demand to be met by 2025 (Baxter 2016).” The National Nuclear Laboratory concluded that “there is an opportunity for the U.K. to regain technology leadership in the ownership and development of low-carbon generation and secure energy supplies through investment in SMRs”.It also stated that “there is a very significant market for SMRs where they fulfila market need that cannot be met by large nuclear power plants, with the size of the potential SMR market calculated to be approximately 65–85 GW of new capacity by 2035, valued at £250–£400 billion” (Waddington 2015). A report from the NNL released in December 2014 indicates “there is a very significant market” for SMRs to meet the needs of up to 7 GWe of generating capacity by 2035. Keep in mind that SMRs come in sizes of 50–300 MW. An installed fleet of 7 GWe would 180 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... represent as few as 20 SMRs and as many as over 100 depending on their size (Yurman 2016). However, serious questions need to be answered related with the development of the SMR. According to Waddington (2015), these questions are the following: • Are SMRs actually commercially viable? • What is the U.K. government appetite for SMR deployment? • How can we develop a localised SMR supply chain? • What are the issues with siting and licensing?17 • What to do with the nuclear waste? • And how will the U.K. fit in with international SMR deployment? The most important question to be answered is whether SMRs might be a better alternative to EdF’s two EPRs at Hinkley Point C (2 Â 1600 MWe) or Hitachi-owned Horizon Energy’s proposed ABWR at Oldbury and Wylfa, with a combined rating of 1300 MWe. The issue has been raised by Civitas, which says Britain’s nuclear industry “faces an uncertain future as foreign companies position themselves to rebuild the U.K.’s nuclear capacity.” They argue that U.K. nuclear industry is now entirely vulnerable to the political agendas of other countries, and that the already established supply chains of EdF, Hitachi, and Toshiba, which plans to build three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors by 2024, threaten to undermine the U.K.’s nuclear expertise, which is estimated to be worth £4 billion a year. Outsourcing nuclear power projects that the U.K. will be committed to for the next 60 years must be handled carefully, if our indigenous industry is not to be diminished. A programme of government support for smaller nuclear power reactors—which are quicker to build and could be manufactured largely in the U.K.—could provide an attractive alternative to the high-risk and “eye-wateringly expensive” projects currently planned. Of course, international investment in the nuclear energy field is welcome, if in collaboration with U.K. businesses. The government has two options: Let the U.K. become merely a host nation whence other nations can springboard their global nuclear ambitions and lose our own nuclear capability; or choose to let the start of a new-build programme of nuclear power reignite the U.K.’s nuclear supply chain, expand its fuel cycle facilities and showcase its world-class research and development capability. Supporting a programme to bring smaller, affordable, secure, SMRs to U.K.-based commercialisation could do just that. The U.K. is well equipped to supply the necessary forgings for SMRs and already has the capacity to supply more than 70% of other nuclear components. The idea of SMRs looks credible and even desirable, but if you stack up the advantages it (SMRs) does make sense, the piece

17The U.K. is currently limited in the number of licensed sites suitable for large nuclear power reactors and SMRs may allow the U.K. to use some smaller licensed sites, as highlighted in a recent Energy Technologies Institute report. However, the main attraction of SMRs is to open up new nuclear power markets in third countries, especially where finance is limited or where the power grid is not robust enough to take large nuclear power reactors (Matthews 2015). 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 181 that is missing is the first mover. To realise the economy of mass production, those vendors who develop SMRs will need a line of customers (Ford 2014). Urenco with others commissioned a study by TU-Delft and Manchester University on the basis of which it has called for European development of very small—5–10 MWe—‘plug and play’ inherently-safe reactors. These are based on graphite-moderated, helium cooled HTR concepts. The fuel block design is based on that of the Fort St Vrain (FSV) reactor in the U.S.. It would use 17–20% enriched uranium and possibly thorium fuel. A 20 MWt and a 10 MWt design have been developed, the latter with beryllium oxide reflector. The smaller “U-battery” would run for five years before refueling and servicing, the larger one for 10 years. The smaller design, 1.8 m diameter, may be capable of being returned to the factory for this. Urenco is seeking government support for a prototype to be built in the coming years (WNA 2015). The issue where nuclear enthusiasts and opponents are perhaps furthest apart is the disposal and management of nuclear waste (Beken et al. 2010). According to Ahearne (2011), after much research into the issue of nuclear waste, “geological disposal remains the only scientifically and technically credible long-term solution available to meet the need for safety without reliance on active management.” It is important to highlight that nuclear wastes are minute in comparison to waste from fossil fuel electricity generating plants (Beken et al. 2010; MacFarlane 2010). However, economically nuclear waste is big and is inclining to get bigger. These costs are due to the fact that radioactive wastes from electricity generation are highly dangerous over hundreds to thousands of years, with the appropriate means of disposal resulting in a matter of controversy (Beken et al. 2010). One method to try and reduce the volume of high level waste is reprocessing. Reprocessing is practiced by countries such as the U.K. and France and involves reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel, extracting the plutonium and uranium, and turning the remaining waste into glass logs which are transported to a repository (MacFarlane 2010). This method does not get rid of the waste, but may decrease it in volume by a factor of about 4–10 times. However, although reprocessing does reduce the waste it also causes a rise in plutonium separation that can be conceivably be used for creating nuclear weapons (Azapagic and Stamford 2011; Schaffer 2011). On this issue, GEH is promoting to U.K. government agencies the potential use of PRISM technology to dispose of the U.K.’s plutonium stockpile, and has launched a web portal in support of its proposal. Two PRISM units would irradiate fuel made from this plutonium (20% Pu, with DU and zirconium) for 45–90 days, bringing it to spent fuel standard of radioactivity, after which is would be stored in air-cooled silos. The whole stockpile could be irradiated thus in five years, with some by-product electricity (but frequent interruptions for fuel changing) and the plant would then proceed to re-use it for about 55 years solely for 600 MWe of electricity generation, with one-third of the fuel being changed every two years. For this U.K. version, the breeding ratio is 0.8. No reprocessing plant (Advanced Recycling Center) is envisaged initially, but this could be added later (WNA 2015). On 25 November, as part of the Spending Review/Autumn Statement 2015, British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced “a major 182 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... commitment to SMR reactors”. In their quarterly report, the regulators said that this may involve them “in earlier work than expected”. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has undertaken a techno-economic assessment (TEA) for SMR technology deployment in the U.K. This concluded earlier than expected and was followed by an announcement of the competition phase to identify the technology (ies) to be taken forward. The regulators said in their quarterly report: “To date ONR has hosted a SMR workshop as part of the TEA, to identify regulatory areas of interest and to explore regulatory strategies for design assessment and nuclear site licensing. Additionally, the Environment Agency has met with Department of Energy and Climate Change to discuss design assessment and permitting of SMRs. The regulators will also provide regulatory input into the competition phase.” Once the U.K. has determined its future nuclear strategy and future scenarios, and if this conclusion calls for the greater role of nuclear energy (for example, greater than the envisaged 16 GWe of new nuclear capacity foreseen today), then there are several recommended activities that need completing: • An assessment of the economics of SMRs is undertaken in the U.K., including the potential financial models. An understanding is needed to mitigate the risk of not only First of a Kind (FOAK) engineering, but also FOAK business and financial models; • A siting study should be completed for SMRs in the U.K. to determine if there are any advantages to be gained over larger nuclear power plants, both in terms of total generating capacity that is possible to site on existing sites and what the size of the construction area would be for SMRs on existing sites; • An assessment of SMR technologies for a range of roles in the U.K. should be complete, including district heating, industrial heat supply and plutonium management. The findings of such a study could drive the potential nuclear choices in the future, including SMRs; • The U.K. skills and manufacturing base should be reassessed for SMRs, including the potential for factories in the U.K. to manufacture the full required modules for SMRs. This activity should be linked into the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Sheffield.

4.2.3 France

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

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

Table 4.12 Nuclear power reactors in operation in France in 2016 Class Reactor MWe net Commercial operation 900 MWe Blayais 1–4 910 12/81, 2/83, 11/83, 10/83 Bugey 2–3 910 3/79, 3/79 Bugey 4–5 880 7/79–1/80 Chinon B 1–4 905 2/84, 8/84, 3/87, 4/88 Cruas 1–4 915 4/84, 4/85, 9/84, 2/85 Dampierre 1–4 890 9/80, 2/81, 5/81, 11/81 Fessenheim 1–2 880 12/77, 3/78 Gravelines B 1–4 910 11/80, 12/80, 6/81, 10/81 Gravelines C 5–6 910 1/85, 10/85 Saint-Laurent B 1–2 915 8/83, 8/83 Tricastin 1–4 915 12/80, 12/80, 5/81, 11/81 1300 MWe Belleville 1 and 2 1310 6/88, 1/89 Cattenom 1–4 1300 4/87, 2/88, 2/91, 1/92 Flamanville 1–2 1330 12/86, 3/87 Golfech 1–2 1310 2/91, 3/94 Nogent s/Seine 1–2 1310 2/88, 5/89 Paluel 1–4 1330 12/85, 12/85, 2/86, 6/86 Penly 1–2 1330 12/90, 11/92 Saint-Alban 1–2 1335 5/86, 3/87 N4-1450 MWe ChoozB 1–2 1500 12/96, 1999 Civaux 1–2 1495 1999, 2000 Source Nuclear Energy Insider

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

19The Simple Compact Reactor (SCOR) is a 2000 MW(th) integral design PWR. The design for the reactor was developed at the Nuclear Energy Division of the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique in Cadarache, France. A detailed description of SCOR design and features is provided in Chap. 2. The SCOR is mainly being developed for electricity generation, providing competitive costs, when compared to large sized nuclear power reactors, through system simpliﬁcation and compactness in plant layout. However, the SCOR could be used in cogeneration schemes, such as seawater desalination using low temperature processes, as well as thermo-compression or multi-effect distillation. The SCOR is an integral design nuclear power reactor having new features with respect to the designs of typical integral type reactors, which usually contain several modular steam generators inside the vessel. Such architecture has led to the design of a large vessel, limiting the output of the reactor to a maximum of 1000 MW(th). In the SCOR concept, the steam generator is located above the vessel and acts as the vessel head. This layout component provides space inside the vessel to increase core size and therefore, has the same safety advantages (elimination of a large break loss of coolant accident); the SCOR unit power is twice as high as the maximum power of a typical integral design reactor (IAEA NP-T-2.2 2009). 20The Multipurpose Advanced Reactor, inherently Safe (MARS) is a 600 MW(th), single loop, PWR; its design was developed at the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Energy Conversion of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. The design was conceived in 1984 as a nuclear power plant able to conciliate well proven PWR nuclear technology with special safety features intended 184 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ... progress toward deployment. The SCOR, with 630 MW(e), is in the conceptual design stage, and is of interest as it represents a larger capacity integral-design PWR. The modular MARS, with 150 MW(e) per module, is at the basic design stage, and is of interest as it represents an alternative solution to other PWR SMRs, the solution based on the primary pressure boundary being enveloped by a protective shell with slowly moving low enthalpy water. France, with its large nuclear capacity, has the lowest emissions from power generation of any European country. However, France in order to diversify its energy mix has decided to reduce the role of nuclear energy in the electricity generation to 50% during the coming years. On the other hand, France is continuing to develop new nuclear power reactor designs. The new France nuclear power reactor design is the so-called “Flexblue design”, a small seabed nuclear power reactor with an output of 160 MW(e) with a target deployment by 2025 (Fig. 4.5). Each module, with the length of 146 and 14 m diameter, is moored on a stable seaﬂoor at a depth of up to 100 m within territorial waters. Additional modules can be installed as demand increases. Flexblue is designed to be remotely operated from an onshore control room. However, each plant includes an on-board control room giving operators local control over the critical operations, including start up and maintenances. Major overhaul is scheduled every 10 years (IAEA-ARIS 2014).21 Another type of SMR developed by France is being put forward by Areva. It is based on the GT-MHR and has also involved Fuji. Reference design is 625 MWt with prismatic block fuel like the GT-MHR. Core outlet temperature is 750 °C for the steam-cycle HTGR version (SC-HTGR), though an eventual very high temperature reactor (VHTR) version is envisaged with 1000 °C and direct cycle. The present concept uses an indirect cycle, with steam in the secondary system, or possibly a helium-nitrogen mix for VHTR, removing the possibility of contami- nating the generation, chemical or hydrogen production plant with radionuclides from the reactor core. It was selected in 2012 for the U.S. next generation nuclear power plant, with 2-loop secondary steam cycle, the 625 MWt probably giving 250 MWe per unit, but the primary focus being the 750 °C helium outlet temperature for industrial application (WNA 2015).

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

Fig. 4.5 Flexblue. Source IAEA

4.2.3.1 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in France

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

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

4.2.3.2 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in France

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

4.2.4 Ireland

Electricity generation in Ireland contributes to almost a quarter of the country’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and most import dependent country in Europe. In future markets, Ireland’s electricity generation will consist of a large supply coming 4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 187 from renewable sources. However, these sources are variable and still require a base-load supply from a power plant to meet demand for the entire year. These power plants are currently being run by fossil fuels, however, to reduce the country’s emissions a more environmental source for base-load supply such as nuclear must be considered. Due to the nature of Ireland’s electricity grid, large nuclear power reactors are considered too large. However, in recent years a new type of reactor, SMRs, has been designed for small electricity grids such as Ireland. These reactors have many advantages such as significantly lower capital costs, enhanced safety features, factory fabrication and can be built modularly to meet the demand, among others. Having explored issues related to the feasibility of SMR’s for Ireland there are a number of conclusions, which can now be drawn: • Energy security and climate change appear to be the key drivers towards an electricity mix with a significant contribution from emission free sources. However, renewable energy will not meet 100% of the demand due to fluctu- ations in supply, therefore an emission free base-load supply that promotes energy security such as nuclear power should be considered; • Due to the nature of the Irish grid, large nuclear power reactors are deemed too large and it is, therefore, necessary to analyse the feasibility of SMRs, which have many advantages, including enhanced safety, modular construction, significantly lower capital cost, and their smaller output allows them to adapt more easily to small electricity grids such as Ireland; • The main barriers identified in deploying the nuclear technology in the country are dealing with the spent fuel and public opinion rejection of the use of this technology for electricity generation (Brazill 2013).

4.2.5 Sweden

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

Table 4.13 The Sweden nuclear power programme in 2016 Reactor Type MWe net Commercial operation Expected shutdown Oskarshamn 1 BWR 473 1972 2017–19 Oskarshamn 2 BWR 1400 1985 2035 or 2045 Ringhals 1 BWR 878 1976 2020 Ringhals 2 BWR 807 1975 2019 Ringhals 3 BWR 1062 1981 2041 Ringhals 4 BWR 938 1983 2043 Forsmark 1 BWR 984 1980 2040 Forsmark 2 BWR 1120 1981 2041 Forsmark 3 BWR 1187 1985 2045 Combined years of operation remaining 160–170 years Source Nuclear Energy Insider

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

4.2.6 Germany

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

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

4.2.7 Poland

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

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

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

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

4.2.7.1 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Poland

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

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

4.2.8 Finland

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

Table 4.14 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in Finland in 2016 Reactor Type Model Present capacity (MWe net) First power Licence to Loviisa 1 WER-440 V-213 488 1977 2027 Loviisa 2 WER-440 V-213 488 1980 2030 Olkiluoto 1 BWR – 885 1978 2039 Olkiluoto 2 BWR – 880 1980 2042 Combined years of operation remaining 74 years Source Nuclear Energy Insider

4.2.9 The Nuclear Power Programme in Other European Countries

4.2.9.1 Belgium

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

Table 4.15 The Belgian nuclear power programme in 2016 Reactor Type Present capacity (MWe net) First power Expected shutdown Doel 1 PWR 433 1974 2025 Doel 2 PWR 433 1975 2025 Doel 3 PWR 1006 1982 2022 Doel 4 PWR 1047 1985 2025 Tihange 1 PWR 962 1975 2025 Tihange 2 PWR 1008 1982 2023 Tihange 3 PWR 1054 1985 2025 Combined years of operation remaining 58 years Source Nuclear Energy Insider 194 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.16 The Bulgarian nuclear power programme in 2016 Reactor Type Model Present capacity First power Expected shutdown (MWe net) Kozloduy 5 WER-1000 V-320 963 11/87 2017a Kozluduy 6 WER-1000 V-320 963 8/91 2021a aPlans to extend plant life to 50−60 years began in 2012 Source Nuclear Energy Insider

4.2.9.2 Bulgaria

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

4.2.9.3 The Czech Republic

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

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

Table 4.18 Nuclear power programme in a group of European countries in 2016 Country No. of Capacity Average 2014 Combined Planned capacity reactors (MWe net) age Energy years of availability operation (%) remaining Switzerland 5 3333 41 90.8 42 – Slovenia 1 696 35 100 27 1100–1600 Spain 7 7070 30 87.9 33 – (Licences until) Slovakia 4 1816 24 90.7 56 2 Â 471 MWe by 2017/2018 and 2 Â 1200 MWe Romania 2 1310 15 94.1 – 2 Â 720 MWe by 2019/2020 Hungary 4 1889 31.5 88.1 35 2 Â 1200 by 2023/2025 Source Nuclear Energy Insider

References

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

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

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

5.1 Introduction

According to the nuclear power programme in Asia (WNA-Asia 2016), in contrast with North America and most of Western Europe, where growth in electricity generating capacity and particularly nuclear power levelled out for many years, several countries in East and South Asia are planning and building new nuclear power reactors to meet their increasing demands for electricity. During the period 2014–2025 it is expected to add, in some countries of the region, a nuclear generating capacity of 1400 GWe, over 120 GWe per year. This is about 46% of the world’s new capacity in that period—under construction and planned (current world capacity is about 6200 GWe, of which 380 GWe is nuclear). Much of this growth will be in China, India and Korea. The nuclear share

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 197 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_5 198 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.1 Nuclear power reactors operation in the Asia and the Pacific region Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW) Armenia 1 375 China 36 31,402 India 22 6225 Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 915 Japan 43 40,290 Korea, Republic of 25 23,133 Pakistan 3 690 Total 131 103,030 The following information is included in the totals: Taiwan, China 6 5052 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016) of this to 2020 is expected to be considerable in three of those countries, especially if environmental constraints limit fossil fuel expansion. However, according to OECD/IEA sources, nuclear power has a limited role in Southeast Asia during the coming decades. This reflects the complexities of developing a nuclear power programme in some of the countries in that region and the slow progress to date of most countries that have included a nuclear power programme in their long-term plans. Vietnam is the most active and is currently undertaking site preparation, work force training and the creation of a legal framework. Moreover, Vietnam has signed a co-operative agreement (that includes financing) with Russia to build its first nuclear power plant, with the aim of entering the energy mix of the country before 2025. Thailand includes nuclear power in its Power Development Plan from 2026, but these plans could face public opposition. It is expected that Thailand could start producing electricity from nuclear power plants before 2030. Without doubt, Asia and the Pacific is the region of the world with the largest nuclear power programme to be implemented in the coming decades. The countries with the largest nuclear power programme are China (36 units), the Republic of Korea (25 units), and India (22 units). China has the largest nuclear power construction programme in the world (20 units) (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). The number of nuclear power reactors operating in the region is included in Table 5.1. This is the second largest nuclear programme in the world after Europe.1 The number of nuclear power reactors under construction in that region in 2016 is shown in Table 5.2.2

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

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

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

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

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

As set out by Locatelli et al. (2014), countries committed to the introduction of nuclear power include Vietnam, which is securing four Russian VVER-1000s, and Bangladesh have also committed to a nuclear power programme—two VVER-1000s. Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia are in the process of developing plans for the introduction of a nuclear power programme in the future. Finally, in the phase of public discussion for nuclear power are the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. Surveying the Southeast Asian region of growing nuclear power needs, there is ample opportunity for smaller output SMRs to contribute towards green energy demand. The options for SMRs span from integral PWR to HTGRs, SFRs and even MSRs, but in the near future it is the integral PWR, which will have the most impact because of its 8-10-year timeframe (Kessides and Kuznetsov 2012)to market as opposed to the 20-year time scales of most advanced designs. Two leading iPWR designs mPower and NuScale are in the process of NRC review for licensing, while Russia has a variety of marine-reactor derived LW-SMRs and the Argentinian CAREM and Korean SMART SMRs are either under construction or in advanced development. The Chinese CNNC/ NPIC’s ACP-100 has finalised its preliminary design (Paterson 2015). It is important to highlight that many Asian-Pacific countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia are coastal-dwelling nations with long power-grid structures requiring vast distances of transmission. A network of distributed SMR power plants can serve to distribute energy production more efficiently, minimising transmission losses with the added benefit of bringing employment to more regional areas. Moreover, the modest output of SMRs at less than 300 MWe allows their deployment on electrical grids without upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure (Paterson 2015). 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 201

5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular Reactors in the Asian and the Paciﬁc Region

5.2.1 China

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

Table 5.4 Nuclear power reactors operating in China in 2016 Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) CHANGJIANG-1 PWR Changjiang 610 650 2015-11-07 CHANGJIANG-2 PWR Changjiang 610 650 2016-06-20 DAYA BAY-1 PWR SHENZHEN 944 984 1993-08-31 CITY DAYA BAY-2 PWR SHENZHEN 944 984 1994-02-07 CITY FANGCHENGGANG-1 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1080 2015-10-25 FANGCHENGGANG-2 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1080 2016-07-15 FANGJIASHAN-1 PWR Jiaxing 1012 1080 2014-11-04 FANGJIASHAN-2 PWR Jiaxing 1012 1080 2015-01-12 FUQING-1 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2014-08-20 FUQING-2 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2015-08-06 FUQING-3 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2016-09-07 HONGYANHE-1 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2013-02-17 HONGYANHE-2 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2013-11-23 HONGYANHE-3 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2015-03-23 HONGYANHE-4 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080 2016-04-01 LING AO-1 PWR SHENZEN 950 990 2002-02-26 LING AO-2 PWR SHENZEN 950 990 2002-09-14 LING AO-3 PWR SHENZEN 1007 1080 2010-07-15 LING AO-4 PWR SHENZEN 1007 1080 2011-05-03 NINGDE-1 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2012-12-28 NINGDE-2 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2014-01-04 NINGDE-3 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2015-03-21 NINGDE-4 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2016-03-29 QINSHAN 2-1 PWR Jiaxing 610 650 2002-02-06 QINSHAN 2-2 PWR Jiaxing 610 650 2004-03-11 QINSHAN 2-3 PWR Jiaxing 619 660 2010-08-01 QINSHAN 2-4 PWR Jiaxing 610 660 2011-11-25 QINSHAN 3-1 PHWR Jiaxing 677 728 2002-11-19 QINSHAN 3-2 PHWR Jiaxing 677 728 2003-06-12 QINSHAN-1 PWR Jiaxing 298 310 1991-12-15 TIANWAN-1 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 2006-05-12 TIANWAN-2 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 2007-05-14 YANGJIANG-1 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1086 2013-12-31 YANGJIANG-2 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-03-10 YANGJIANG-3 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-10-18 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016) 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 203

Table 5.5 Nuclear power reactors under construction in China in 2016 Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) FANGCHENGGANG-3 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1150 FUQING-4 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 FUQING-5 PWR Fuqing 1000 1087 FUQING-6 PWR Fuqing 1000 1087 HAIYANG-1 PWR Haiyang 1000 1250 HAIYANG-2 PWR Haiyang 1000 1250 HONGYANHE-5 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080 HONGYANHE-6 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080 SANMEN-1 PWR Taizhou 1000 1250 SANMEN-2 PWR Taizhou 1000 1250 SHIDAO BAY-1 HTGR Weihai 200 211 TAISHAN-1 PWR Taishan 1660 1750 TAISHAN-2 PWR Taishan 1660 1750 TIANWAN-3 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 TIANWAN-4 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 TIANWAN-5 PWR Lianyungang 1000 1118 TIANWAN-6 PWR Lianyungang 1000 1118 YANGJIANG-3 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-10-18 YANGJIANG-4 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 YANGJIANG-5 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1087 YANGJIANG-6 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1087 Source IAEA PRIS (2016) China is developing the world’s smallest nuclear power plant which could be installed in one of the islands in the disputed South China Sea to supply power to households and can run for up to decades without refuelling, according to media sources. Modelled on the compact lead-cooled thermal reactor used by the navy of the former Soviet Union in its nuclear submarines in the 1970s, Chinese researchers are carrying out intensive work to develop “portable nuclear battery pack” within ﬁve years fastest-growing electricity source in 2015 (29% growth), while generation from fossil fuels dropped 2.7%, due to weak economic conditions more than the ongoing energy transformation. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said that 2015 gross nuclear generation was 169 TWh, 3% of total, and net 158.3 TWh. Net export was 12 TWh in 2013, with that to Hong Kong being 9 TWh, adding to its 39 TWh generation (29 TWh from coal, 10 TWh from gas) (WNA-China 2016). Finally, it is important to highlight the following: The February 2015 edition of the BP Energy Outlook 2035 projects that by 2035 China becomes the world’s largest energy importer, overtaking Europe, as import dependence rises from 15 to 23%. China’s energy production rises by 47% while consumption grows by 60%. China’s fossil fuel output continues to rise with increases in natural gas (+200%) 204 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … and coal (+19%) more than offsetting declines in oil (−3%). China’sCO2 emissions increase by 37% and by 2035 will account for 30% of world total with per capita emissions surpassing the OECD by 2035. In the 13th Five-Year Plan from 2016, six to eight nuclear power reactors are to be approved each year and after 2020 the number of units to be approved each year increase to 10 (WNA-China 2016) (Table 5.6).

5.2.1.1 The Development of Small Modular Reactors in China

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

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

(continued) 205 Table 5.6 (continued) Small the of Perspective and Situation Current The 5 206 Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start up Changde (Chenzhou, Hengyang) Hunan 4 × 1150 Hualong 1 CNNC and Guodian? CGN Zhangzhou units 5 and 6 Fujian 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC and Guodian Jiyang/Chizhou units 1 and 2 Anhui 2 × 1250? AP1000 CNNC Sanmen units 5 and 6 Zhejiang 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC Cangnan units 1 and 2 Zhejiang 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN and Huaneng Fuling units 1 and 2 Chongqing 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Jingyu units 1 and 2 Jilin 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI and Guodian Donggang units 1 and 2 Liaoning 2 × 1150 Hualong 1? Huadian Xiapu units 1-6 Fujian 6 × 1250 AP1000 Huaneng Wuhu units 1 and 2 Anhui 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Ningdu units 1 and 2 Jiangxi 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC and Guodian Xiaomoshan units 1 and 2 Hunan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Yanjiashan/Wanan/Ji’an units 1 Jiangxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC and 2 Shaoguan Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN units 1-4 (inland) Subtotal: 92 units 64 × 1250 18 × 1150 2 × 1200 6 × 200 2 × 100 =104,500 MWe (continued) … Table 5.6 (continued) Modular Small of Use the in Perspective and Situation Current 5.2 Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start up Further proposals (less deﬁnite or further away) Cangzhou units 3-6 Hebai 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC and Huadian Jiyang/Chizhou units 3 and 4 Anhui 2 × 1250? AP1000? CNNC Cangnan units 3-6 Zhejiang 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN/Huaneng Longyou/Zhexi units 1-4 Zhejiang 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC Haijia/Haifengunits 1 and 2 Guangdong 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Fuling units 3 and 4 Chongqing 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Jingyu units 3 and 4 Jilin 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI and Guodian Songjiang units 1 and 2 Shanghai 2 × 1250? AP1000 CGN and Guodian Wuhu units 3 and 4 Anhui 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Heyuan/Jieyang units 1-4 Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC? CPI? Xiaomoshan units 5 and 6 Hunan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Haiyang units 7 and 8 Shandong 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Hengren units 1-4 Liaoning 4 × 1250 AP1000 CPI Zhanjiang units 1-4 Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Xiangtan Hunan 4 × 1250 AP1000 Huadian?

Donggang units 3 and 4 Liaoning 2 × 1000 Huadian? … Pulandian units 1-4 Liaoning 4 × 1250 AP1000 Huaneng Shizu Chongqing 2 ×? CNNC Qiaofushan Hebai 2 ×? CNNC Xianning units 5 and 6 Hubei 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Guangshui Hubei 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Zhingxiang Hubei 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC, Datang (continued) 207 Table 5.6 (continued) Small the of Perspective and Situation Current The 5 208 Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start up Hebaodao Guangdong 2 ×? CNNC? Yibin Sichuan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC Gulei units 1 and 2 Fujian 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC-CNEC Hengfeng units 1 and 2 Jiangxi 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC and Guodian Tongren Guizhou 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN Xiapu Fujian 1 × 210 HTR Huaneng Xiapu unit 1 Fujian 1 × 600 FNR (TWR-P) CNNC Jiamusi Heilongjiang 2 × 1150 Hualong 1 Huaneng and CNNC, or CGN Subtotal: about 79 units 62 × 1250 2 × 1150 8 × 1000 or? 2 × 880? 1 × 210 1 × 600 4 × 100 =90,770 MWe Total proposed: about 170 195,000 MWe Note: It is likely that many proposed AP1000 units listed in this Table will be replaced by Hualong One or CAP1400. All are PWRs except Shidaowan and Ruijin HTRs and Xiapu FNRs. Some of these entries are based on sketchy information. For WNA reactor table, 80% of numbers and capacity from this table are listed as ‘Proposed’: 136 units and 153 GWe … 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 209 reactors”. It is pitched for remote electricity supply and district heating, with three-year refueling and design life of 80 years. In mid-2013, SNPTC quoted approx. US$5000/kW capital cost and 9 c/kWh.4 3. CAP-FNPP In China, a SNERDI project was for a reactor for floating nuclear power plant. This is to be 200 MWt and relatively low-temperature (250 °C), so only about 40 MWe with two external steam generators and five-year refueling.5 4. ACPR100, ACPR50S China General Nuclear Group (CGN) has two small ACPR designs: An ACPR100 and ACPR50S, both with passive cooling for decay heat and 60-year design life.6 The ACPR100 is an integral PWR, 450 MWt, 140 MWe, having 69 fuel assemblies. The offshore ACPR50S is 200 MWt, 60 MWe with 37 fuel assemblies and four external steam generators. It is designed for mounting on a barge as floating nuclear power plant. The applications for these are similar to those for the ACP100, but the timescale is longer. 5. High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTR-PM) These use graphite as moderator (unless fast neutron type) and either helium, carbon dioxide or nitrogen as primary coolant. The experience of several innovative nuclear power reactors built in the 1960s and 1970s has been analysed, especially in the light of U.S. plans for its Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) and China’s launched its HTR-PM project in 2011.7 Lessons learned and documented for NGNP include the use of TRISO fuel, use of a reactor pressure vessel, and use of helium cooling (UK AGRs are the only HTRs to use CO2 as primary coolant). However, U.S. government funding for NGNP has now virtually ceased, and the technology lead has passed to China. 6. HTR-10 According to WNA (2016), China’s HTR-10, a 10 MWt high-temperature gas-cooled experimental reactor at the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) at Tsinghua University north of Beijing, started up in 2000 and reached full power in 2003. In 2004, the small HTR-10 reactor was subject to an extreme test of its safety when the helium circulator was deliberately shut off without the reactor being shut down. The temperature increased steadily, but the physics of the fuel meant that the reaction progressively diminished and eventually died away over three hours. At this stage a balance between decay heat in the core and heat dissipation through the steel reactor wall was achieved, the temperature

4For more information on this type of SMR, see Chap. 2. 5For more information on this type of SMR, see Chap. 2. 6For more information on these types of SMRs, see Chap. 2. 7For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2. 210 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … never exceeded a safe 1600 °C, and there was no fuel failure. This was one of six safety demonstration tests conducted then. The high surface area relative to volume, and the low power density in the core, will also be features of the full-scale units (which are nevertheless much smaller than most light water types).8 In February 2006, the State Council announced that the small HTR was the second of two-high priority National Major Science and Technology Projects for the next 15 years. China Huaneng Group is the lead organisation in the consortium to build the demonstration Shidaowan HTR–PM with China Nuclear Engineering and Construction Group (CNEC). Tsinghua University’s Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) is the R&D leader. Following the agreement on HTR industrialization cooperation between CNEC and Tsinghua University in 2003, the two parties signed a further agreement on commercialisation of the HTR in March 2014. CNEC is responsible for the HTR technical implementation, and becomes the main investor of HTR commercial promotion at home and abroad (Kang and Jeremy 2015). 7. Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR) China is building a 5 MWe thorium-breeding MSR (Th-MSR or TMSR), essentially an LFTR, with 2015 target for operation at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Applied Physics. China claims to have the world’s largest national effort on these and hopes to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology. The U.S. DoE is collaborating with the China Academy of Sciences on the program, which had a start-up budget of US$350 million. The target date for TMSR deployment is 2032 (WNA-China 2016).

5.2.1.2 Nuclear Technology Exports Policy of China

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

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

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

In 2013, CNNC announced an export agreement for twin ACP1000 units, for Pakistan’s Karachi Coastal Power station, costing US$9.6 billion. This will now use Hualong One technology and be built by China Zhongyuan Engineering Corporation. Construction of the first unit started in August 2015. CNNC is keen to export the Hualong One reactor more widely, and says it is open to EPC, BOT and BOO project models (WNA-China 2016). In May 2014, Romania’s Nuclearelectrica signed an agreement with CGN to explore the prospect of building two new nuclear power reactors at Cernavoda 212 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … nuclear power plant site, which currently has two Candu 6 nuclear power reactors. In November 2013, two nuclear cooperation agreements were signed by Nuclearlectrica with CGN, one a letter of intent relating to construction of units 3 and 4. In July 2014, an agreement was signed by Argentine and Chinese presidents towards construction of Atucha 3 as a PHWR unit. CNNC will provide most of the equipment and technical services under long-term financing. Candu Energy will be a subcontractor to CNNC. In September 2014, the utility NASA signed a commercial framework contract with CNNC to progress this, with CNNC’s Qinshan Phase III units as reference design for a Candu 6 unit. It will have US$3.8 billion in local input and US$2 billion from China and elsewhere under a long-term financing arrangement (WNA-China 2016). SNPTC is keen to export the CAP1400 reactor, and considers Turkey and South Africa to be good prospects. In November 2014, SNPTC signed an agreement with Turkey’s utility EUAS and Westinghouse to begin exclusive negotiations to develop and construct a four-unit nuclear power plant in Turkey. In December 2014, it signed two agreements in South Africa with a view to nuclear power plant construction, and CNNC signed another there (WNA-China 2016). CNEC has promoted the HTR technology to Dubai, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Indonesia, and has signed agreements with some of them.

5.2.1.3 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in China

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

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

5.2.2 The Republic of Korea (South Korea)

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

9The NNSA is under particular pressure to oversee the operation of 36 nuclear power reactors and the construction of 20 more reactors, as well as being the first regulatory authority to review six new designs. Not even the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which monitored standards during the huge build out of the industry in the 1960s and 1970s, has faced such a workload. Safety authorities are usually reluctant to appear critical of their international peers. but in 2014, a senior French safety regulator described NNSA as “overwhelmed”, and claimed that the storage of components was not at an adequate level. A senior official from SNPTC said in 2015: “Our fatal weakness is our management standards are not high enough.” To build up the capabilities to support such a large construction programme a pause in ordering new plants and equipment may be necessary (Thomas and Steve 2016). 214 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … import bill would have been about US$20 billion higher, according to KEPCO. Power demand in South Korea has increased by more than 9% per year since 1990, but slowed to about 2.8% between 2006 and 2010 and is projected to be 2.5% in 2020. Per capita consumption in 2013 was 9700 kWh, up from 860 kWh/year in 1980. Over the last three-and-a-half decades, South Korea has enjoyed 8.6% average annual growth in GDP, which has caused corresponding growth in electricity consumption—from 33 TWh in 1980 to 545 TWh in 2014. South Korea is the only OECD country with nuclear power and where the electricity market has not yet been formally liberalized (WNA-South Korea 2016). In 2015, electricity production was 549 TWh gross, with 236 TWh of this from coal, 165 TWh (30%) from nuclear, 118 TWh from gas, 16.5 TWh from oil, 6 TWh from hydro, and 3.8 TWh from wind and solar (IEA provisional data). At the end of 2015, installed capacity was 98.8 GWe, comprising 28.55 GWe coal, 30.4 GWe gas, 21.7 GWe nuclear, 4.1 GWe oil, 14.0 GWe hydro and other renewables (KHNP figures). In 2020, nuclear generation capacity of 26.4 GWe is expected to supply over 220 TWh—some 43% of the electricity generated in the country, simply considering those units now under construction and allowing for Kori 1 retirement. In 2022, nuclear capacity of 32.9 GWe was expected to be nearly one-third of the national total of 101 GWe then. By 2030, the government earlier expected nuclear energy to supply 59% of the power (333 TWh), from 41% of the installed capacity. This would require adding about 24 GWe nuclear by 2030. But at the end of 2013 a draft proposal to government was for nuclear to provide only 29% of capacity by 2035, instead of 41%, hence holding it at around the 2022 level (WNA-South Korea 2016). South Korea has 25 nuclear power reactors operating in the country and three units under construction in 2016. The nuclear power reactors operating in the country in 2016 is shown in Table 5.8. The number of nuclear power reactors under construction and planned in 2016 is shown in Tables 5.9 and 5.10. South Korea has a policy to promote the export of its nuclear technology to third countries. Following the UAE sale, it was marketing to Turkey, Jordan, Romania, Ukraine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Philippines, Vietnam, and Czech Republic. In addition to exporting reactors, it also plans to enter the US$78 billion market for the operation, maintenance and repair of nuclear power reactors. In April 2015, KEPCO signed an agreement with Brazil’s Eletrobras and Eletronuclear, as a bridgehead into Latin America. In August 2016, KEPCO signed an agreement with Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) to cooperate on construction of nuclear power plants in Kenya. In November 2014, there were 200 UAE engineers at Korean nuclear power plants, gaining experience for Barakah. The workforce of 18,000 at Barakah includes 2300 Koreans. In 2016, KHNP signed an agreement with Ukraine’s Energotatom, one objective of which is to complete the construction of the Khmelnitski 3&4 partly-built Russian nuclear power reactors. An associated objective is to cooperate in the Ukraine-EU “energy bridge” project, 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 215

Table 5.8 Nuclear power reactors operating in South Korea in 2016 Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) HANBIT-1 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 997 1000 1986-03-05 HANBIT-2 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 984 993 1986-11-11 HANBIT-3 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 994 1050 1994-10-30 HANBIT-4 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 980 1032 1995-07-18 HANBIT-5 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 994 1053 2001-12-19 HANBIT-6 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 993 1052 2002-09-16 HANUL-1 PWR Ulchin-gun 966 1003 1988-04-07 HANUL-2 PWR Ulchin-gun 967 1008 1989-04-14 HANUL-3 PWR Ulchin-gun 997 1050 1998-01-06 HANUL-4 PWR Ulchin-gun 999 1053 1998-12-28 HANUL-5 PWR Ulchin-gun 998 1051 2003-12-18 HANUL-6 PWR Ulchin-gun 997 1051 2005-01-07 KORI-1 PWR Gijang-gun 576 608 1977-06-26 KORI-2 PWR Gijang-gun 640 676 1983-04-22 KORI-3 PWR Gijang-gun 1011 1042 1985-01-22 KORI-4 PWR Gijang-gun 1012 1041 1985-11-15 SHIN-KORI-1 PWR Busan and Ulsan 999 1049 2010-08-04 SHIN-KORI-2 PWR Busan and Ulsan 996 1046 2012-01-28 SHIN-KORI-3 PWR Ulsan 1340 1400 2016-01-15 SHIN-WOLSONG-1 PWR Gyeongju-si 997 1045 2012-01-27 SHIN-WOLSONG-2 PWR Gyeongju-si 993 1045 2015-02-26 WOLSONG-1 PHWR Gyeongju-si 657 685 1982-12-31 WOLSONG-2 PHWR Gyeongju-si 652 675 1997-04-01 WOLSONG-3 PHWR Gyeongju-si 665 688 1998-03-25 WOLSONG-4 PHWR Gyeongju-si 669 691 1999-05-21 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Table 5.9 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction in South Korea in 2016 Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical power (MW) capacity (MW) SHIN-HANUL-1 PWR Ulchin-gun 1340 1400 SHIN-HANUL-2 PWR Ulchin-gun 1340 1400 SHIN-KORI-4 PWR Ulsan 1340 1400 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016) exporting power from Khmelnitski 2 to Poland. In January 2015, the SMART Power Company was launched with support from six supply chain companies in order to export the small reactor technology, particularly to the Middle East for desalination. 216 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.10 South Korean nuclear power reactors planned Reactor Type Gross capacity Start Commercial (MWe) construction operation Shin Kori 5 APR1400 1400 September 2016 March 2021 Shin Kori 6 APR1400 1400 September 2017 March 2022 Shin Hanul 3, Ulchin APR1400 1400 2018 December 2022 Shin Hanul 4, Ulchin APR1400 1400 2019 December 2023 Cheonji 1 APR+ 1500 2022? December 2026 Cheonji 2 APR+ 1500 2023? December 2027 Cheonji 3 or Daejin 1 APR+ 1500 2025? 2029? Cheonji 4 or Daejin 2 APR+ 1500 2026? 2029? Total planned: 8 11,600 Note: Those not under construction are listed as planned in the WNA reactor table and the dates are according to the 7th power supply plan, so all are expected online by the end of 2029 Source WNA-South Korea (2016)

In December 2009, the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) selected a consortium headed by the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) with Daewoo to build a 5 MW research and test reactor (JRTR) at the Jordan University for Science and Technology—the country’s ﬁrst nuclear reactor. The reactor will be like South Korea’s HANARO heavy water reactor, and is ﬁnanced partly by a US $70 million soft loan from South Korea, with 0.2% interest rate and repayment over 30 years (WNA-South Korea 2016).

5.2.2.1 Development of Small Modular Reactors in South Korea

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

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

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

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

5.2.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of

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

5.2.3.1 Recent Development of the Iranian Nuclear Power Programme

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

Table 5.11 Nuclear power reactors operating in Iran in 2016 Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid power (MW) capacity (MW) connection BUSHEHR-1 PWR HALILEH 915 1000 2011-09-03 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

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

Table 5.12 Nuclear power reactors planned and proposed in Iran Type MWe gross Construction Commercial start operation Bushehr 2 AES-92, 1057 2018? 2024 VVER-1000V-466B Bushehr 3 AES-92, 1057 2020? 2025 VVER-1000V-466B Makran ACP100 100 2018? coast Makran ACP100 100 coast Planned: 4 2200 Darkhowin LWR, IR-360 360 Bushehr 4 VVER ? Bushehr 5 VVER ? Other 1-4 VVER? Proposed: 7 Source WNA-Iran (2016) 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 221

5.2.3.2 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Iran

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

5.2.3.3 The Future Use of Small Modular Reactors in Iran

The government electricity generation strategy will focus in the use of nuclear energy, including on the development and use of SMRs. For this reason, the government and the nuclear industry is currently assessing potential partners for cooperation in the ﬁeld in addition to Russia. The government is now making the necessary assessment as to whether it is feasible for Iran or not to use this type of 222 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … nuclear power reactors for electricity generation in the future as part of its programme for the expansion in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and desalination, and then will look around and see which countries are willing to co-operate with the country in the development of SMRs for this speciﬁc purposes.

5.2.4 India

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

5.2.4.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in India

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

Table 5.13 Nuclear power reactors in operation in India in 2016 Nuclear Power Plant Unit Type Capacity Date of commercial (MWe) operation Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 1 BWR 160 October 28, 1969 (TAPS), Maharashtra Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 2 BWR 160 October 28, 1969 (TAPS), Maharashtra Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 3 PHWR 540 August 18, 2006 (TAPS), Maharashtra Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 4 PHWR 540 September 12, 2005 (TAPS), Maharashtra Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 100 December 16, 1973 (RAPS), Rajasthan Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 200 April 1, 1981 (RAPS), Rajasthan Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 3 PHWR 220 June 1, 2000 (RAPS), Rajasthan Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 4 PHWR 220 December 23, 2000 (RAPS), Rajasthan Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 5 PHWR 220 February 4, 2010 (RAPS), Rajasthan Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 6 PHWR 220 March 31, 2010 (RAPS), Rajasthan Madras Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 January 27, 1984 (MAPS), Tamilnadu Madras Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 March 21, 1986 (MAPS), Tamilnadu Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 1 PHWR 220 November 16, 2000 Karnataka Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 2 PHWR 220 March 16, 2000 Karnataka Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 3 PHWR 220 May 6, 2007 Karnataka Kaiga Generating Station (KGS), 4 PHWR 220 January 20, 2011 Karnataka Kudankulam Atomic Power 1 VVER-1000 1000 December 31, 2014 Project, Tamilnadu (PWR) Narora Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 January 1, 1991 (NAPS), Uttarpradesh Narora Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 July 1, 1992 (NAPS), Uttarpradesh Kakrapar Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 May 6, 1993 (KAPS), Gujarat Kakrapar Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 September 1, 1995 (KAPS), Gujarat Total: 21 units with a total capacity of 5780 MWe Source Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (2016) 224 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.14 Nuclear power reactors under construction in India in 2016 Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid power (MW) capacity (MW) connection KAKRAPAR-3 PHWR SURAT 630 700 KAKRAPAR-4 PHWR SURAT 630 700 PFBR FBR MADRAS 470 500 RAJASTHAN-7 PHWR KOTA 630 700 RAJASTHAN-8 PHWR KOTA 630 700 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

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

EPR … Markandi (Pati Orissa PWR 6000 NPCIL Sonapur) MWe Kovvada 3 and 4 Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh AP1000 1250 NPCIL Earlier: “Kovvada Originally Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh Originally 1600 NPCIL 2018? 1-6” ESBWR Nizampatnam 1-6 Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 6x? 1200 NPCIL (continued) 225 2 h urn iuto n esetv fteSmall the of Perspective and Situation Current The 5 226 Table 5.16 (continued) Reactor State Type MWe Project control Start Start gross construction operation (each) Haripur 3 and 4 West Bengal, Orissa or Kavali in Andhra AES-2006? 1200 NPCIL another site Pradesh Pulivendula Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh PWR? 1000? NPCIL 51%, AP PHWR? 700? Genco 49% Kovvada 5 and 6 Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh AP1000 1250 NPCIL Chhaya-Mithi Bhavnagar, Gujarat AP1000 1250 NPCIL Virdi 1-6 Subtotal proposed Approx 55 64,000 MWe approx (discounted 44 units, 51 GWe) Note: For WNA reactor table: ﬁrst 20 units ‘planned’; next (estimated) 55 units and 64 GWe ‘proposed’—80% of both ﬁgures listed (44 and 51,000 MWe). There is likely some duplication among reported plans for West Bengal, Orissa and with Russian units beyond Kudankulam 8. Source WNA-India (2016) … 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 227

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

5.2.4.2 Stages in the Development of the Nuclear Power Programme in India

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

5.2.4.3 The Current Situation and the Perspective of Small Modular Reactors in India

India has by far one of the largest civil nuclear power generation programme at world level. In recent years, international collaboration with India around its 228 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small … civilian nuclear programme has opened, and several countries have signed MoU or collaboration agreements. For this reason, has been assumed that at least one of the countries currently developing SMRs will be prepared to supply them to India, provided that India adds the SMR(s) to its list of nuclear facilities subject to IAEA safeguards (Waddington 2014). On the other hands, the NPCIL is now focusing on 540 and 700 MWe versions of its PHWR, and is offering both 220 and 540 MWe versions internationally. These small established designs are relevant to situations requiring small to medium units, though they are not state of the art technology and are not a typical SMR. In addition to the PHWR design, India conclude the development of an AHWR-300 LEU 300 MWe11 and is ready to begin its construction. A PFBR-500 Liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactor is now under construction, with a capacity of 500 MW, according to IAEA-ARIS (2012). It is important to single out most nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the country can be classiﬁed as small or medium nuclear power reactor. In summary, the following can be stated: There is some potential for SMR deployment in India, as it is likely that in such a large nation sites and locations that require power will exist, that are not suited to large nuclear power plants or other forms of electricity generation. There is also the potential for a signiﬁcant Indian market for nuclear-based desalination and industrial process heat. By 2035, India could have a SMR installed capacity of 4800 MW representing 0.6% of the total capacity installed in the country by that year (Waddington 2014).

5.2.5 Pakistan

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

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

Table 5.17 Nuclear power reactors in operation in Pakistan in 2016 Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid unit power electrical connection (MW) capacity (MW) CHASNUPP-1 PWR KUNDIAN 300 325 2000-06-13 CHASNUPP-2 PWR KUNDIAN 300 325 2011-03-14 KANUPP PHWR Karachi 90 100 1971-10-18 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

5.2.5.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Pakistan

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

5.2.5.2 The Future of the Small Modular Reactors in Pakistan

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

Table 5.18 Nuclear power reactors under construction in Pakistan in 2016 Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid power (MW) capacity (MW) connection CHASNUPP-3 PWR KUNDIAN 315 340 CHASNUPP-4 PWR KUNDIAN 315 340 K-2 PWR Karachi 1014 1100 Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

5.2.6 Bangladesh

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

Table 5.19 Planned nuclear power reactors Type Capacity Construction Commercial (MWe) start operation Rooppur 1 AES-2006/V-392M 1200 August 2017 2023 or 2024 Rooppur 2 AES-2006/V392M 1200 2018 2024 or 2025 Source WNA-Bangladesh (2016) governments signed an agreement on export credit for ﬁnancing of preparatory stage of construction of the Rooppur nuclear power plant. In 2013, the government approved a project development document on construction in 2017 of Rooppur nuclear power plant (First Phase).

5.2.6.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Bangladesh

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

5.2.7 Indonesia

With an industrial production growth rate of 10.5%, electricity demand is estimated to reach 45 GW in 2026.12 To satisfy the foreseen growth in electricity demand, which is expected to growth at 7.4% per year, the government is promoting the development of several independent power projects that could help to generate 233 TWh by the end of 2016. The Java-Bali grid system accounts for more than three quarters of Indonesia’s electricity demand—132 TWh in 2012. The Indonesia's Electricity Corporation, projects 55 GWe new capacity by 2021, 38 GWe of this will be produced by coal-ﬁred power plants. For 2025, 115 GWe capacity is projected, 20% of this from new and renewable energy sources. The government also plans major grid enhancements on Java, on Sumatra, and Kalimantan, with a link Sumatra to Java.

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

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

5.2.7.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Indonesia

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

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

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

5.2.8 Vietnam

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

Table 5.20 Power balance 2011–2030 Power balance 2011–2030 (Base case) Years 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total demand 18,406 30,802 48,956 71,857 101,955 Total installed capacity, MW 24,623 42,316 70,115 89,188 137,800 Total reserve capacity, MW 6217 11,514 19,787 17,331 23,183 Reserve ratio, % 33.8 37.4 40.4 24.1 22.7 Hydropower 10,677 14,377 17,987 18,816 21,100 Coal TPP 4135 14,015 32,535 39,740 77,300 Oil and gas TPP 8332 11,272 13,625 15,965 17,500 Small hydropower and renewable 511 1579 3129 4779 4800 Nuclear power ––1000 4000 10,700 Import 918 1073 1839 5888 6300 Source Tuan (2011)

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

Table 5.21 Planned and proposed nuclear power reactors Location Plant (province) Type MWe Start Operation nominal construction Phuoc Dinh Ninh Thuan 1-1 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 2023 2028 Ninh Thuan 1-2 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 2024 2029? Ninh Thuan 1-3 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 ? Ninh Thuan 1-4 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 ? Vinh Hai Ninh Thuan 2-1 Atmea1? 1100 Delayed 2028? Ninh Thuan 2-2 Atmea1? 1100 Delayed ? Ninh Thuan 2-3 Atmea1? 1100 ? Ninh Thuan 2-4 Atmea1? 1100 ? Central APR-1400? 1350 ? Central APR-1400? 1350 ? Total planned (4) 4800 Total proposed 7100 Source WNA-Vietnam (2016) 5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 235

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

5.2.9 Thailand

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

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

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

5.2.10 Philippines

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

5.2.11 Malaysia

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

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

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

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

5.2.11.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Malaysia

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

References

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

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

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

6.1 Introduction

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

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 241 J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_6 242 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors following damage in the steam generators of one unit. In addition, in August 2013, Entergy announced that its 635 MWe Vermont Yankee reactor would be shutdown at the end of 2014 for economic reasons and this was done. Furthermore, over a dozen of aging nuclear power reactors have been considered to be at risk of early closure for economic reasons, regulatory issues and local safety and reliability concerns (WNA 2016). In Europe, the only nuclear power reactors under construction in 2016 are in Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland, and France (IAEA-PRIS 2016). The nuclear power reactors under construction in France and in Finland are behind schedule and over budget, while other countries such as Germany, have decided to eliminate their reliance in nuclear power after 2022, when all nuclear power plants will be permanently shutdown. Nuclear advocates have changed their focus from conventional large nuclear power reactors to overcome the above-mentioned concerns, including cost overruns and construction delays, to the development of SMRs. There has been recently a growing interest in the development and commercialisation of a new generation of SMRs as they offer a new promising path for nuclear industry and are likely a viable solution to the economic and safety challenges faced by large nuclear power plants (Cunningham 2012). Currently there are three nuclear power reactors operating and three other under construction that fall under the category of SMRs (Table 6.1) (WNA 2016). In addition, there are more of 45 SMRs designs under development for different application, ten of which are for near-term deployment (IAEA-ARIS 2014) in more than 15 industrialised and developing countries alike. Example of these SMRs and their development stage is presented in Table 6.1. Innovative SMR designs are under development for water cooled, gas cooled, liquid metal cooled, and molten salt cooled reactor lines, as well as some non-conventional combinations thereof. The desire for the development of SMRs stems from various key benefits that they offer, such as: • Simple design and robust safety features; – Robust safety margins with inherent passive resistance to severe accidents, including design basis accidents and beyond design basis accidents; – Less vulnerability to natural event (e.g., earthquake, tsunami, and tornado) and human external events (e.g., air craft crash); • Free carbon emission (like large nuclear power plants); • Low upfront capital cost—significant reduction in risks associated with SMRs deployment and easier financing scheme; • SMRs have the ability to be cost competitive with other energy sources; • Flexibility for utilities for incremental capacity growth, which could potentially increase the attractiveness of SMRs to investors; • Quick revenue stream due to shorter construction times compared to large nuclear power reactors; 6.1 Introduction 243

Table 6.1 SMR operating, under construction or near-term deployment Name Electrical Reactor Technology developer Status capacity type (MWe) CNP-300 300 PWR CNNC, operational in Operating Pakistan and China PHWR-220 220 PHWR NPCIL, India Operating EGP-6 11 LWGR at Bilibino, Siberia Operating (cogen) KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia Under-construction CAREM 27 Integral CNEA and INVAP, Under-construction PWR Argentina HTR-PM, 2 Â 105 HTR INET, CNEC and Under-construction HTR-200 Huaneng, China VBER-300 300 PWR OKBM, Russia Development well advanced NuScale 50 Integral NuScale Development well PWR Power + Fluor, U.S. advanced Westinghouse 225 Integral Westinghouse, U.S. Development well SMR PWR advanced mPower 180 Integral Bechtel + BWXT, U.S. Development well PWR advanced SMR-160 160 PWR Holtec, U.S. Development well advanced ACP100 100 Integral NPIC/CNNC, China Development well PWR advanced SMART 100 Integral KAERI, South Korea Development well PWR advanced Prism 311 Sodium GE-Hitachi, U.S. Development well FNR advanced BREST 300 Lead RDIPE, Russia Development well FNR advanced SVBR-100 100 Lead-Bi AKME-engineering, Development well FNR Russia advanced Source (WNA 2016)

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

6.2 Enhanced Safety Features

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

6.2.1 Improved Source Term

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

6.2.2 Reduced Linear Element Rating

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

6.2.3 Enhanced Decay Heat

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

6.2.4 Other Inherent and Passive Safety Features

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

Fig. 6.1 mPower—Decay heat removal strategy. Source IAEA-ARIS (2014) 246 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors safety systems. Instead of using these pumps and motors, they rely on gravity to run all or most significant systems in the plant. Replacing these motors and pumps with gravity driven fluid flow systems, which does not depend on the availability of electric power, is a significant advantage under many accident scenarios, harden the plant against serious nuclear accidents like Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl. Some SMR designs, such as Flexblue and mPower, use boron-free reactor coolant as an added safety feature. Boron, which is present in LWRs, is used to control the change in reactor core reactivity (due to fission product buildup and fissile isotopes depletion), is balanced by burnable poison (in general gadolinium) or additional reactivity control rods. The elimination of boron from the coolant in SMRs results in enhanced uranium utilisation, strong negative moderator temperature coefficient and preclude boric acid corrosion issues, which results in a simple chemical control system (IAEA-ARIS 2014). In many SMR designs, such as HTR-PM, the decay heat is passively removed from the core under any designed accident conditions by natural mechanisms, such as heat conduction or heat radiation, and keeps the maximum fuel temperature. This significantly reduces the possibility of core melt and large releases of radioactivity into the environment. Consequently, there is no need for emergency core cooling system(s) in the design, and the decay heat is removed by natural mechanisms. Some SMR designs incorporate inherent safety features, such as higher thermal inertia. In some cases, fast‐moving accidents such as Loss‐of‐Coolant Accidents (LOCAs) have been eliminated, and transient response is more benign, which results in enhanced safety slower accident response, and improved severe accident performance. In addition, most of SMRs have large coolant volume to core power ratio compared to large nuclear power plants. For a typical Generation III PWR reactor this ratio is usually about 0.08, which is significantly lower than that of mPower, 0.18. Higher coolant volume to core power ratio means more time for safety system response during accidents. Auxiliary or supporting systems can affect the reliability of safety systems. Use of passive systems in place of active systems improves reliability. In the typical SMR design, elimination of all active cooling systems from the reactor side and elimination of all emergency cooling systems from the reactor building result in greatly improved plant simplicity and reliability. Radiated heat from the reactor vessel is removed by passive means. The conducted heat into the containment may also be removed by the natural air cooling from the surface of the containment. An integral nuclear steam supply system may use an immersed primary pump, so no motor or pump seal cooling is required. As the result, all active cooling systems may be eliminated. This is illustrated in Table 6.2 below (American Nuclear Society 2010). In general, SMRs have large operating safety margin compared to large nuclear power plan. SMRs designs in development are expected to have a core damage frequency and large release frequency that are significantly lower than those of the current-generation large nuclear power plants, including Generation III of LWR. This is due to small core inventory, the vastly simplified design (fewer systems) and the inclusion of advanced design features, such as passive safety systems. It is 6.2 Enhanced Safety Features 247

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

6.3 Economic Competitiveness Between Small Modular Reactors and Large Nuclear Power Reactors

SMRs have attractive characteristics of simplicity, enhanced safety features, and require limited upfront cost. However, SMRs are considered not to be cost competitive with large nuclear power reactors because of the economy of scale 248 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors principle. Based on this principle the specific capital cost (US$/kWe) of a SMR is generally higher than that of a large nuclear power reactor. However, the economy of scale has limitation and is only true if the SMR and large nuclear power reactor have similar design (Carelli et al. 2010). Currently, SMRs have very different designs and characteristics from large nuclear power reactors, and hence the assumption that the capital cost of a small size nuclear power reactor is higher than for a large size reactor is erroneous (Carelli et al. 2004). The overnight capital cost (OCC) and the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) are two key metrics that are commonly used for determining the project economics of nuclear energy, and more generally, electricity generation assets. OCC is the cost of a construction of a nuclear power reactor assuming no interest was incurred during construction, as if the project was completed “overnight.” LCOE is the price the nuclear power plant must charge per unit of electricity sold for it to break even over its lifetime, and defined as follow:

Total costs over lifetime LCOE ¼ Electricity produced over lifetime

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

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

6.3.1 Lower Upfront Cost

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

6.3.2 Modularisation

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

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

6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing Countries

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

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

Table 6.3 Potential SMRs Country SMRs potential deployment markets capacity GWe Algeria 22.8 Angola 19.2 Australia 11.4 Bolivia 10.0 Botswana 1.9 Central African Republic 5.7 Chad 13.9 Congo 4.2 Gabon 1.0 Guyana 0.6 Kazakhstan 9.3 Libya 2.5 Mali 15.6 Mauritania 3.9 Marshall Islands 0.03 Mongolia 1.4 Namibia 1.6 New Zealand 2.7 New Caledonia 0.2 Niger 16.9 Sudan 45.0 Solomon Islands 0.6 Suriname 0.3 Turkmenistan 5.7 Uruguay 3.3 Zambia 14.6 Sources Russian energy strategy (2013) the speciﬁc technology, that make SMRs have the potential to play a key role in meeting the energy needs of these countries driven by many factors such as growing population and urbanisation. These key SMRs features include: • Ability to accommodate small electricity grids; • Lower absolute overnight capital costs compared with large nuclear power reactors; • Incremental capacity increase that could meet the incremental increase of demand and minimise ﬁnancial risk to the investor; • Expected lower operating and maintenance costs than those of large nuclear power plants due to inherent and passive safety features and greater simplicity of the SMRs design; 6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing Countries 253

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

6.5 Proliferation Resistances

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

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

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

6.6 Conclusions

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

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

References

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

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

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

7.1 Introduction

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

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

7.2 Investment in Nuclear Power Plants

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

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

7.3 Safety Issues Associated to Nuclear Power Plants

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

7.4 Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants

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

7.5 The Small Modular Reactors

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

Fig. 7.1 Prototype of an SMR. Source ANS

Fig. 7.2 SMRs research and development by country. Source: IAEA order that further commercialisation be feasible. It is important to highlight that this type of nuclear power reactor would have greater automation, but will still rely on human interaction for supervision, system management, and operational decisions, because operators are still regarded as the last line of defence, if failures in automated protective measures occur. 7.5 The Small Modular Reactors 263

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

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

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

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

7.6 Priorities in Research and Development Activities to Be Considered for a Group of Selected Small Modular Reactors

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

7.6.1 Priority R&D for Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors

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

7.6.2 Priority R&D for Lead-Bismuth Eutectic-Cooled Reactors (LBE)

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

7.6.3 Priority Research and Development for Sodium-Cooled Reactors

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

References

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