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

Transcription

1 The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation 2015 The document describes briefly the current situation and perspectives for the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) concept in the generation of electricity and for other non-electricity purposes.

2 1- General Overview Nuclear technology is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources available in the world today. Nuclear energy generated 11.2% of the global power production in According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is expected to grow around the world, particularly in some specific regions, as demand for electricity increases as foreseen. In 2014, a total of 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 376,910 MWe. Nuclear power plants generated 2,370 TWh of electricity in 2013, which is 1.2% more than the level generated in The slight increase in nuclear power generation capacity can be attributed to three new nuclear power reactors that came online in 2013: two in China and one in Iran. In 2014, the electricity generated by nuclear power plants reached 2, TWh, which is 0.6% less than the electricity generated in The number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014 and the evolution of the generation of electricity by the use of nuclear energy during the period are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and in Table 1. Note: The total number of nuclear power reactors in China includes also six units in Taiwan Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig. 1: Number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014 Page 1 of 39

3 Table 1: Total number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014 Country Number of Reactors Total Net Electrical Capacity MWe ARGENTINA 3 1,627 ARMENIA BELGIUM 7 5,927 BRAZIL 2 1,884 BULGARIA 2 1,906 CANADA 19 13,500 CHINA 24 20,056 CZECH REPUBLIC 6 3,884 FINLAND 4 2,752 FRANCE 58 63,130 GERMANY 9 12,068 HUNGARY 4 1,889 INDIA 21 5,308 IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF JAPAN 48 42,388 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 23 20,721 MEXICO 2 1,330 NETHERLANDS PAKISTAN ROMANIA 2 1,300 RUSSIA 34 24,654 SLOVAKIA 4 1,815 SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRICA 2 1,860 SPAIN 7 7,121 SWEDEN 10 9,474 SWITZERLAND 5 3,308 UKRAINE 15 13,107 UNITED KINGDOM 16 9,243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 98,476 TOTAL ,910 The following information is included in the totals in Table 1: TAIWAN, CHINA 6 5,032 Source: PRIS-IAEA Page 2 of 39

4 Electricity generated (MWe) ,660 2,608 2,597 2,558 2,629 2, ,346 2,370 2, Electricity generated (MWe) Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig. 2: Evolution of the world s generation of electricity by nuclear energy during the period According to Figure 2, the nuclear electricity generation worldwide decreased 11.4% during the period , with the exception of the period and The main reason for this decrease is that the number of nuclear power reactors that were shut down in that period was higher than the number of new nuclear power reactors connected to the electrical grid. Figure 2 shows very clearly that nuclear power generation witnessed a decline in 2011, 2012 and in 2014, caused by the drop in nuclear power generation in Japan and Germany as well as in other countries after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown caused not only the shut down of almost all of Japan s operating nuclear power reactors in 2011, but eight units were also immediately shut down in Germany as well, among several units in other countries. As a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the German government took the decision to shut down all of its nuclear fleet due to the negative reaction of the public to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in the country. After a detailed analysis of the relevant information elaborated by the IAEA, the World Nuclear Association (WNA), and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) on the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and the future of this energy source, the following can be stated: It is expected that the nuclear market could gradually recover from the decline it suffered from being included in the energy mix of different countries during the period The level of its recovery will depend on the following elements: Fossil fuel reserves; Fossil fuel prices; Energy security concerns; Environmental and climate change considerations; Page 3 of 39

5 Nuclear safety concerns; Nuclear waste management; The cost of new nuclear power plants associated with new types of nuclear power reactors now under development (Generation IV); Public opinion; and Nuclear proliferation concerns (Morales Pedraza, 2013). Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is not a cheap alternative or and easy option free of risks. It is a real fact that many countries have no conditions to use, in an economic and safe manner, nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at least during the coming decades. From the technological point of view, the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity could be very complicated and costly for many countries, particularly for those with a low technological development or with limited financial resources to be invested in the nuclear energy sector. Moreover, most of the countries considering nuclear power as a potential option in the future, lack well-prepared and trained professionals, technicians and highly-qualified workers and have a relatively small electrical grid. In comparison to coal-fired and natural gas-firedpower plants, it is true that in many countries nuclear power plants are more expensive to build, although less expensive to operate. Undoubtedly, this is an important characteristic that should be noted by the national competent authorities during the consideration of the future structure of any country s energy mix (Morales Pedraza, 2013). After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all major nuclear power countries revised their long-term energy plans and have developed stringent safety measures so that they can continue with their nuclear power development in the future. But in at least two countries the governments have come up with plans to completely phase out nuclear power from their energy mix: Germany before 2022 and Switzerland before Some others are thinking to do the same in the future, such as Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others, while others such as China, Japan, France 1 and the UK, have developed strong frameworks for nuclear safety and also performed stress tests on their existing nuclear power reactors in operation to ensure their safe operations in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety measures in nuclear power reactors 1 The French nuclear safety regulator has specified additional post-fukushima safety measures to be taken at the country's fuel cycle and research facilities. Stress tests that were performed on European nuclear power reactors following the March 2011 Fukushima accident were extended in France to cover all basic nuclear installation. The aim of these stress tests was to determine the safety margins that exist on these facilities with regard to extreme hazards, such as earthquakes and flooding or AREVA, these stress tests were performed on fuel cycle facilities at its La Hague, Romans-sur-Isère, Tricastin and Marcoule sites. Meanwhile, such tests were carried out at fuel and research facilities operated by the French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA) at Marcoule, Cadarache and Saclay. According to World Nuclear News, in June 2012, following an analysis of these stress tests, France's nuclear safety regulator, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN), asked AREVA and the CEA to define a "hardened safety core" of systems at each facility that are incredibly robust and will provide essential safety services during even the most extreme circumstances. This should push the safety of all facilities well beyond their original design bases, and combined with enhanced management during evolving crises, help to ensure even severe accidents have limited consequences. Having examined the proposals submitted by AREVA and the CEA, ASN has now issued resolutions "establishing additional prescriptions stipulating the requirements applicable" in meeting their proposed hardened safety cores. Page 4 of 39

6 currently in operation in several countries, it is expected that the installation of new units in the future will continue its growth trajectory, but perhaps at a lower pace. According to the IAEA, the future growth of nuclear power will be driven by largescale capacity additions in the Asia and the Pacific market. Of the total 495 projects in the pipeline, 316 are planned to be constructed in the Asia and the Pacific region (63.8% of the total). In addition, in 2014, a total of 47 units were under construction in that region and 142 units were planned for Asian investment in nuclear projects could reach US$ 781 billion during the period up to 2030 according to WNA sources. Undoubtedly, the biggest nuclear power program in the Asia and the Pacific region is the one currently under implementation in China with 22 units in operation in the Mainland plus 2 in Taiwan, and 25 units under construction according to the information provided by the government. In 2015, China will begin the construction of five new nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 5 GW according to WNA sources. Nuclear power capacity is expected to rise steadily worldwide. This increase is needed in order to satisfy an increase in the demand of energy in several countries, particularly in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Hungary, Czech Republic, and in some newcomers like the UAE, Turkey, Belarus, Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, and Bangladesh, the need to reduce the greenhouse emissions and the negative impact in the environment as a result of the use of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. In 2014, there were 69 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries according to IAEA sources. Although most of the planned nuclear power reactors were located in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 25 units; India 6 units; Korea 5 units; Japan 2 units 2 ; and Pakistan 2 units, see Figure 3), it is important to highlight that Russia has also plans for the construction of nine new nuclear power reactors during the coming years. In addition to the setting up of new nuclear power reactors in the countries mentioned above, large amount of capacity will be created through plant upgrades in many others. Based on what has been said above, it is expected that nuclear power capacity will reach GWe in 2025, and that nuclear power generation will reach 3,698 TWh by the same year. 2 These two units are still declared under construction by Japan, but at this stage it is difficult to confirm that these units will be finished in the coming years, or will never be concluded. Page 5 of 39

7 Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig.3: Nuclear power reactors under construction at world level in 2014 There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31 countries. These are the following: Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) 3 ; Boiling Water Reactors (BWR); Fast-neutron Breeder Reactors (FBR); Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR); Gas-cooled Reactors (AGE and Magnox); Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK and EGP). The number of nuclear power reactors by type in operation worldwide in 2013 is given in Table 2. Table 2: Nuclear power reactors in commercial operation in 2013 Reactor type Main Countries Number GWe Fuel Coolant Moderator Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor 'CANDU' (PHWR) Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR & Magnox) US, France, Japan, Russia, China US, Japan, Sweden Enriched UO 2 Water Enriched UO 2 Water Canada Natural UO 2 Heavy water UK 15 8 Natural U CO 2 (metal), Enriched Water Water Heavy water Graphite 3 About 62.6% of the nuclear power reactors in commercial operation (439 units) are PWRs. A total of 58 PWRs units are under construction (84 % of the total). Page 6 of 39

8 UO 2 Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK & EGP) Russia Enriched UO 2 Water Fast Neutron Reactor (FBR) Russia PuO 2 and Liquid UO 2 sodium Total Note: In 2014, they were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries, five more than in Source: IAEA Graphite None 2- Advances Nuclear Technologies Advanced nuclear technologies are expected to drive the future of the nuclear power market. For this reason, the nuclear power sector is expected to benefit in the near future from the following new nuclear technologies: Generation IV nuclear power reactors; European pressurized reactors (EPR); Small and medium sized modular reactors (SMRs) Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors This is the new generation of nuclear power reactors now under research and development in several countries. This new generation of nuclear power reactors is a revolutionary type with innovative fuel cycle technologies. According to Morales Pedraza (2013), the main factors that are influencing the development of new generation of nuclear power reactors are the following: a) Economics; b) Safety; c) Proliferation resistance; d) Environmental protection; e) Improved resource utilization; and f) Reduced waste generation. Adding to innovations designed to achieve improved fuel efficiency, there are other issues which require innovative approaches, including high temperature applications and designs to be used in isolated or remote locations. According to the IAEA report International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power (2008), specific innovative development approaches that could lead to improvements in efficiency, safety, and proliferation resistance include, among other benefits: Long life fuel with very high burn-up; Improved fuel cladding and component materials; Alternative coolant for improved safety and efficiency; Robust and fault tolerant systems; Page 7 of 39

9 High temperature Brayton cycle power conversion 4 ; Thorium fuel design. Why a new generation of nuclear power reactors is needed? The answer is the following: Generation IV initiative is the recognition that the current safety features of Generation III and Generation III+, while representing a significant improvement over older nuclear power reactors (Generation I and II) from the technological and safety point of view, are not enough to satisfy government and the public opinion in several countries on the safe use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, particularly after the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. On the other hand, if the current global nuclear capacity of 376,910 MWe is maintained, then it will be insufficient to reduce and stabilize CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere in the long-term, particularly due to a foreseeable increase in the energy demand all over the world. The increase in the energy demand in a group of countries such as China, India, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, and Russia, among others, will be very high, and the use of different renewable energy sources for electricity production in the coming years will not be enough to satisfy this new demand. For this reason, the international community needs to use energy sources such as nuclear power, which could deliver the highest power capacity in a sustainable manner and in the safest possible means. The following are the designs of Generation IV systems already under research and development in a group of countries: Gas cooled fast reactor (GFR); Lead cooled fast reactor (LFR); Molten salt reactor (MSR); Sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR); Super critical water cooled reactor (SCWR); Very high temperature gas reactor (VHTR 2.2- European Power Reactor (EPR) The EPR system offered by AREVA is considered by the owner company as the world s most advanced PWR to enter into operation within the so-called Generation III+ during the coming years. It is considered by AREVA as the world s most powerful reactor system, capable of generating more than 1,600 MWe of electricity. The EPR system is up to now according to AREVA, the only Generation III+ reactor to be 4 The Brayton cycle is used for gas turbines only where both the compression and expansion processes take place in rotating machinery. The Brayton cycle is made up of four internally reversible processes: a) Isentropic compression (in a compressor); b) Constant pressure heat addition; c) Isentropic expansion (in a turbine); and d) Constant pressure heat rejection. All four processes of the Brayton cycle are executed in steady flow devices so they should be analyzed as steady-flow processes. Page 8 of 39

10 marketed on a global scale. In fact, it has been certified by several leading nuclear regulatory authorities in several countries. Four EPRs are currently under construction in France (one unit), Finland (one unit) China (two units), and two units are planned to be constructed in the UK in the coming years. In addition, negotiations are underway with some countries for the construction of several new EPR systems in the near future. According to AREVA home page, the main characteristics of the EPR system are the following: The EPR system builds upon the most recent evolution of light water reactor technology and is positioned at the cutting edge of a continuous innovation process; The EPR system is optimized to meet the highest safety requirements of the new generation of nuclear power plants while offering very competitively priced electricity generation; The EPR system has been designed with unparalleled safety levels, highly resistant to internal and external hazards as well as combination of hazards. Nuclear safety is central to the EPR design, which has benefited from the input and involvement of French and German nuclear safety authorities from its earliest phases. The result is the EPR design with unparalleled safety levels, highly resistant to both internal and external hazards; The EPR system follows first a deterministic approach for design development, complemented with probabilistic studies. The design approach integrates past experience to guarantee safety objectives through full diversity, complementarity, and redundancy of proven technologies; The EPR system has been licensed and approved by the world s most demanding organizations. The quality of EPR technology is reflected in its world-class licensing record. It complies with the technical specification criteria issued by European electricity companies (European Utilities Requirements, EUR) and the American Electric Power Research Institute; An AREVA first fleet of EPR systems rests on a solid foundation of extensive building experience, with continued construction of 102 nuclear power plants since the 1970s and operation of light water reactors worldwide 5 ; The EPR system provides from uranium and plutonium safe, sustainable electricity from an exceptionally cost-effective source of energy at a long-term predictable cost, particularly in the context of fossil fuel depletion. While meeting higher safety 5 A total of 102 nuclear power reactors have been built or under construction by AREVA in 11 countries, of which 91 units are still in operation with no significant safety issues so far, These are: 84 PWRs (including 11 German nuclear power reactors temporarily suspended); six BWRs also German nuclear power reactor temporarily suspended; one PHWR; seven shut down reactors; and four EPR units currently under construction: One in France; one in Olkiluoto Finland; and two in Taishan, China (Taishan 1 and 2). One EPR system is projected to be constructed in the UK in the coming years. Page 9 of 39

11 requirements, the EPR system offers significant competitive advantage through an efficient use of resources and high performance. Operators can expect: -Lower operating expenses; -Optimal capital expenditure; -Higher availability (targeted at 92%); -Superior fuel management and output per kilo of fuel; -High durability with an expected 60-year operating lifetime. Thanks to its enhanced safety and its high efficiency, the EPR system improves upon existing light water reactors to the benefit of the environment. The EPR system has been designed in such a way to reduce radioactive waste production and allow for better waste management; The EPR system layout offers exceptional and unique resistance to internal or external hazards or combination of hazards, especially earthquake and large airplane crash. The ERPs under construction or to be constructed in the world during the coming years are the following: Finland - Olkiluoto 3 project is the first Generation III+ system under construction in the world; France - Flamanville 3 is the first Generation III+ system under construction in the country; China - Taishan 1 and 2 are the first two Generation III+ system under construction in the country 6 ; United Kingdom - Hinkley Point C, is the first Generation III+ system to be constructed in the country in the near future. However, and despite the positive evaluation of the EPR system made by AREVA, the experience in the construction of the Olkiluoto Unit 3 has not been very successful. According to STUK, the Finish competent nuclear regulatory authority, the construction of this unit is facing a series of difficulties and problems that are not only delaying the conclusion of the construction work, but are increasing considerably its cost, well above the initial budget approved. The delays have been due to various problems with planning, supervision, and workmanship, and have been the subject of an inquiry by STUK. The first problems that surfaced were irregularities in the foundation concrete, and caused a delay of months. Later, it was found that the subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up 6 These two reactors EPR (Taishan 1 and 2) represent the largest international commercial contract signed in civil nuclear history. Page 10 of 39

12 to project standards and which had to be re-cast. An apparent problem constructing the reactor s unique double-containment structure also caused delays, as the welders had not been given proper instructions. Several times the deadline for the entry into commercial operation of the unit has been changed. It is expected that the construction work would end in 2018, several years after the first deadline was given Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) The SMRs include a large variety of designs and technologies 7 and in general, consist of: Advanced SMRs, including modular reactors and integrated PWRs; Innovative SMRs, including small-sized Generation IV reactors with non-water coolant/ moderator 8 ; Converted or modified SMRs, including barge mounted floating nuclear power plants and seabed-based reactors; Conventional SMRs, those of Generation II technologies still being deployed. The SMRs are designed based on the modularization of their components, which means the structures, systems and components are shop-fabricated, then shipped and assembled on site, with the purpose of reducing considerably the construction time of this type of units. 7 The IAEA defines small nuclear power reactor, as a reactor under 300 MWe, and medium nuclear power reactor up to about 700 MWe. However, the most common use of SMR is as an acronym for small modular reactor, designed for serial construction and collectively to comprise a large nuclear power plant. In other words, SMR is being used to refer to the use of diverse pre-fabricated modules to expedite the construction of a single large nuclear power plant in the same site. On the other hand, DOE defines reactors as SMRs if they generate less than 300 MWe of power, sometimes as little as 25 MWe, compared to conventional nuclear power reactors, which may produce more than 1,000 MWe. SMRs can be constructed in factories and installed underground, which improves containment and security but may hinder emergency access. 8 SMR designs using liquid sodium as a coolant for the reactor permit operation at nearly atmospheric pressure with a large margin to the boiling point of the coolant (subcooling margin). Maintaining the core coolant subcooled provides assurance that the fuel cladding is not being overheated. The subcooling margin for these reactors is much greater than in an existing PWRs. Operation at atmospheric pressure eliminates the possibility of pressure transients (ANS interim report, 2010). However, the cost picture for sodium-cooled reactors is rather grim, particularly in the US. They have typically been much more expensive to build than light water reactors, which are currently estimated to cost between US$ 6,000 and US$ 10,000 per kilowatt in the US. The costs of the last three large breeder reactors have varied wildly. In 2008 dollars, the cost of the Japanese Monju reactor (the most recent) was US$ 27,600 per kilowatt (electrical); French Superphénix (start up in 1985) was US$ 6,300; and the Fast Flux Test Facility (startup in 1980) at Hanford was US$ 13,800. This gives an average cost per kilowatt in 2008 dollars of about US$ 16,000, without taking into account the fact that cost escalation for nuclear power reactors has been much faster than inflation (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010). Page 11 of 39

13 Source: ANS Fig. 4: Prototype of a SMR Advanced SMRs will use different approaches for achieving a high level of safety and reliability in their systems, structures, components, and that will be the result of complex interaction between design, operation, material, and human factors. Undoubtedly, interest in SMRs continues to grow as a real option for future power generation and energy security 9, particularly in developing countries. However, the first phase of advanced SMRs deployment will have to ultimately demonstrate high levels of plant safety and reliability, and prove their economics in order for further commercialization to be feasible. It is important to highlight that this type of nuclear power reactor would have greater automation, but will still rely on human interaction for supervision, system management, and operational decisions because operators are still regarded as the last line of defense, if failures in automated protective measures occur. 3- Benefits of the Use of SMRs The use of SMRs for electricity generation or for any other non-electrical purpose, offers several advantages in comparison with larger nuclear power reactors. Some of these advantages are: Lower initial capital investment (in absolute terms); Scalability; Siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger nuclear power reactors (remote areas); 9 One reason for government and private industry to take an interest in SMRs is that they have been successfully employed for much longer than most people realize. In fact, hundreds of this type of reactor has been steaming around the world inside the hulls of nuclear submarines and other warships for 60 years. They have also been used in merchant ships, icebreakers, and as research and medical isotope reactors at universities. Page 12 of 39

14 Potential for enhanced safety and security. According to US Department of Energy (DOE), some of the main benefits of the SMRs are the following: Modularity: The term modular in the context of SMRs refers to the ability to fabricate major components of the nuclear steam supply system in a factory environment and ship to the site; Lower Capital Investment (in absolute terms): SMRs can reduce a nuclear power plant owner s capital investment due to the lower plant capital cost. Modular components and factory fabrication can reduce construction costs and duration; Siting Flexibility: SMRs can provide power for applications where large nuclear power plants are not needed or sites lack the infrastructure to support a large unit. This would include smaller electrical markets, the need to supply electricity in isolated areas 10 and with small grids, sites with limited water and acreage or unique industrial applications. SMRs are expected to be attractive options for the replacement or repowering of aging fossil plants or to provide an option for complementing existing industrial processes or power plants with an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases; Gain Efficiency: SMRs can be coupled with other energy sources, including renewable and fossil energy, to leverage resources and produce higher efficiencies and multiple energy end-products, while increasing grid stability and security. Some advanced SMR designs can produce a higher temperature process heat for either electricity generation or industrial applications; Nonproliferation: SMRs also provide safety and potential nonproliferation benefits to the international community. Most SMRs will be built below grade for safety and security enhancements, addressing vulnerabilities to both sabotage and natural phenomena hazard scenarios. Some SMRs will be designed to operate for extended periods without refueling. The SMRs could be fabricated and fueled in a factory, sealed and transported to the sites where they are going to be located for power generation or process heat, and then returned to the factory for defueling at the end of the life cycle; International Marketplace: There is both a domestic and international market for SMRs in several countries, particularly developing countries in all regions. However, two important elements should be highlighted regarding the use of SMR systems. One element is that the use of SMRs would create a more complex waste 10 Some SMR proponents argue that the size and safety of the designs of this type of reactors make them well suited for deployment to remote areas, military bases, and countries in the developing world that have small electric grids, relatively low electric demand, and no nuclear experience or emergency planning infrastructure. Such deployments, however, would raise additional safety, security, and proliferation concerns (Lyman, 2013). Page 13 of 39

15 problem. Supporters of SMRs claim that with longer operation on a single fuel charge and with less production of spent fuel per reactor, waste management would be simpler. However, in fact, spent fuel management for SMRs could be more complex than expected, and therefore more expensive, because the waste would be located in many more different sites. In some proposals, the unit would be buried underground, making waste retrieval even more difficult and complicating retrieval of radioactive materials in the event of an accident. For instance, it is highly unlikely that a SMR containing metallic sodium could be disposed of as a single entity, given the high reactivity of sodium with both air and water. Decommissioning a sealed sodium- or potassium cooled reactor could present far greater technical challenges and costs per kilowatt of capacity than faced by present-day aboveground SMR designs. The second element to be considered is that the use of SMRs will not be a climate solution. The long time a decade or more that it will take to certify many of the different 45 prototypes of SMRs will do little or nothing to help with the global warming problem that many countries is now facing (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010). However, there are four different types of SMRs now under construction in three countries, and their entry into operation could reduce the CO 2 emissions in a short period of time. 4- The Current Situation and Perspective of the SMRs Market at World Level Globally, there is a growing demand for cheap, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity in almost all countries in all regions, particularly in emerging economies and in several developing countries as well. There is also an increase need to find new sources of energy that do not rely for their supply on hostile or politically unstable countries. At the same time, recent concerns over global warming have resulted in many governments pledging their nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they produce as a result of conventional electricity generation, and in the adoption of new and stricter environmental regulations, which threaten to close dozens coal-powered plants across Europe and the US. The hope was that massive investments in alternative energy technologies, such as solar and wind power, would make up for this cut in generating capacity, but the inefficiencies and intermittent nature of these technologies made it clear that something with the capacity and reliability of oil, coal or natural gas power plants was needed. The only well-known energy alternative to the use of more coal or oil power plants is nuclear energy. But the expansion in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has suffered from the natural gas boom brought about by new drilling techniques and Page 14 of 39

16 fracking 11 that opened up vast new gas fields in the West. The use of this new technology has dropped significantly the price of gas and oil to the point where the option of nuclear energy has a hard time competing with gas and oil. In addition, the strong public opposition to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in several countries is making more difficult the use of this type of energy source for this specific purpose. Undoubtedly, the lack of funds available for developing new nuclear power projects is expected to delay the revival of the nuclear power industry in the US and the EU. The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown played a key role in the current lack of financial support for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the US and the EU forcing several other governments to reconsider their nuclear power policies. The policy changes adopted, which are backed by a fear of radiation, the safe operation of the nuclear power plants, the management of nuclear waste, environmental issues and anti-nuclear public opinion, have caused uncertain market conditions, whereby investment in nuclear power projects is deemed increasingly risky. A number of international funding institutions have also become skeptical of nuclear power projects and refuse to invest in such ventures, amplifying the uncertainty of the nuclear market. The lack of government financial support for the construction of new nuclear power plants has also a negative impact in the expansion of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in several countries, particularly in the US and in some European countries as well. Up until now, the sort of typical nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity had tended to be large with units reaching gigawatt levels of output. With nuclear power plants that large, the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance, and meeting the legal challenges from environmentalist groups can push the cost of a conventional nuclear power plant of two units toward as much as US$ 9-10 billion. It also means very long construction times of ten to fifteen years in many nuclear power projects. With so much time and money involved, an unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of construction errors or an unfortunate geological fault under the reactor site can make nuclear power projects very risky and uncertain investment for any utilities. For these and other reasons, there is a move in several countries to develop smaller units with the purpose of supplying them in the future to countries already using nuclear energy for electricity generation and heating or to countries that are interested to introduce a nuclear power program for the first time. As it was said before, one of the main characteristics of the SMRs is that they could be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added 11 Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial technique for extracting national gas from deep oil and gas wells by injecting vast quantities of water mixed with chemicals and sand into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. Page 15 of 39

17 incrementally as required 12. This is without doubt an important characteristic of SMRs that make this type of nuclear power reactors very appropriate for many countries, particularly medium size developing countries, and even small developing countries, given the necessary conditions and suitable electrical grid sizes. There are also moves to develop independent small units in order to provide electricity in remote sites in several countries, particularly in developing countries. On the other hand, small units are seen as a much more manageable investment than big ones whose cost often rivals the capitalization of the utilities concerned. This specific characteristic of the SMRs makes them a real alternative for the generation of electricity in several countries, including developing countries. It is important to highlight that modern small reactors for power generation are expected to have greater simplicity of design, economy of mass production, and reduced siting costs. Most are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety 13 in the event of malfunction. This important feature of the SMRs is something that policy makers should have in mind when considering the expansion of existing nuclear power programs in a country or the introduction of this type of program in the future. One of the important characteristics of the SMRs is that they can be designed to be employed below ground level, giving a high resistance to terrorist threats 14. However, the underground siting of reactors is not a new idea. Decades ago, both Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov proposed siting reactors deep underground to enhance safety, but it was recognized later that building reactors underground increases cost. Numerous studies conducted in the 1970s found construction cost penalties for underground nuclear power reactor construction ranging from 11 % to 60 % (Myers and Elkins, 2009). As a result, the industry lost interest in underground siting. 12 In order for individual units to remain independent, the number of support staff and amount of safety equipment would need to increase with the number of units on a site. Only through significant sharing of systems and personnel by multiple units, the associated cost increase could be moderated. Thus, the SMR vendors want to reduce the number of control rooms and licensed operators that the US NRC would ordinarily require for a certain number of units. For example, the NuScale design could have a single control room operator in charge of as many as 12 units, the feasibility of which would have to be verified through performance testing. But such a strategy of sharing would run counter to the lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident (Lyman, 2013). On the other hand, this possibility could have safety implication. For example, some companies have been talking about cutting costs by using just one control room to run five to six reactors. When you get to the root cause of nuclear accidents, it is almost always due to human error, and if you have fewer people watching the reactors, there is a greater chance of problems and this is something that governments and nuclear industry should carefully evaluate. 13 One attraction of SMRs is their ability to rely on passive natural convection for cooling, without the need for fallible active systems, such as motor-driven pumps, to keep the cores from overheating. The approach is not unique to SMRs: the Westinghouse AP1000 and the GE ESBWR are full-sized reactors with passive safety features. However, it is generally true that passive safety features would be more reliable for smaller cores with lower energy densities. On this issue it is important to highlight the following: Certain SMR designs are small enough that natural convection cooling should be sufficient to maintain the core at a safe temperature in the event of a serious accident like a station blackout. However, some vendors are marketing these designs as inherently safe, which are a misleading term. While there is no question that natural circulation cooling could be effective under many conditions for such small reactors, it is not the case that these reactors would be inherently safe under all accident conditions. In general, passive systems alone can address only a limited range of scenarios, and may not work as intended in the event of beyond-design-basis accidents (Lyman, 2013). 14 Some SMR vendors propose to locate their reactors underground, which they argue will be a major safety benefit. While underground siting would enhance protection against certain events, such as aircraft crash and earthquakes, it could have disadvantages as well. Again, studying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, emergency diesel generators and electrical switchgear were installed below ground to reduce their vulnerability to seismic events, but that location increased their susceptibility to flooding. Moreover, in the event of a serious accident, emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors (Lyman, 2013). Page 16 of 39

18 Another important characteristic of the SMRs is the improvement in all safety aspects associated with the operation of a nuclear power reactor. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society (ANS interim report, 2010) showed that many safety provisions necessary or at least prudent in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming. Safety systems for SMRs will include the systems used to shut down the reactor and those used to remove decay heat. The safety systems of the SMR designs all include some version of a Reactor Shutdown System (RSS). The RSS in SMRs will be inherently simpler than that of the current generation of nuclear power reactors, primarily due to the smaller size of the units. The RSS may be activated, either by loss of power, by the neutron detection instrumentation or by any other process parameter, such as the core outlet temperature of the nuclear power reactor vessel. When activated, the RSS will force the nuclear power reactor to shut down. Should the RSS fail to be activated, the SMR s power level would nonetheless drop, if the design incorporates a negative power coefficient of reactivity, bringing the unit to a shut down state in a safe manner. After the automatic shut down of a nuclear power reactor, passive systems remove energy from the reactor and connected loops, respectively, in case that the units possess such systems. These passive safety systems do not require power for valve movements to initiate them. These systems may rely on the natural circulation of the process fluid and/or air and do not depend on operator action. The inherent capability of these designs to remove decay heat through passive means avoids the need to resort to active systems to maintain the nuclear power plant in a safe shutdown condition. The improvement in nuclear power plant safety of the SMR designs over conventional designs is illustrated by the fact that many, if not all, of the systems/features upon which a current generation reactor relies, are not required to be maintained in this type of nuclear reactors. Of the various types of proposed SMRs, liquid metal fast reactor designs pose particular safety concerns. Sodium leaks and fires have been a central problem sodium explodes on contact with water and burns on contact with air. Sodium-potassium coolant, while it has the advantage of a lower melting point than sodium, presents even greater safety issues, because it is even more flammable than molten sodium alone (IPFM, 2010). Sodium-cooled fast reactors have shown essentially no positive learning curve (i.e., experience has not made them more reliable, safer or cheaper) and this is something that governments and the nuclear industry should have in mind during the consideration of the type of SMR that is going to be built in the country. According to World Nuclear Association, a 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors and Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that there could be between 43 and 96 SMRs in operation around the world by 2030, but none of them in the US 15. In 2011, there were 125 small and medium units up to According to the IAEA, the US with its nuclear energy policy is not attractive enough to mobilize the resources that are needed to expand its nuclear power program. Page 17 of 39

19 MWe in operation and 17 under construction in 28 countries totaling 57 GWe of capacity. The projected timelines of readiness for deployment of SMRs generally range from the present to Currently there are more than 45 SMR designs under development for various purposes and applications, but most of these prototypes will not be ready for a commercial operation before 2030 (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). The exceptions are four prototypes of SMR designs that were under construction in 2014: CAREM-25, an industrial prototype in Argentina, KLT-40S and RITM-200, floating SMRs in the Russian Federation, and HTR-PM, an industrial demonstration plant in China. Table 3: Snapshots of small and medium-sized reactor designs under development and deployment CAREM-25 (Argentina) DMS (Japan) ABV-6M (Russian Federation) RUTA-70 (Russian Federation) Elena (Russian Federation) ACP100 (China) IMR (Japan) RITM-200 (Russian Federation) mpower (United States) SHELF (Russian Federation) Water-cooled SMRs Flexblue (France) SMART (Republic of Korea) VVER300 (Russian Federation) NuScale (United States) AHWR300 (India) KLT-40S (Russian Federation) VK-300 (Russian Federation) Westinghouse SMR (United States) IRIS (International Consortium) VBER-300 (Russian Federation) UNITHERM (Russian Federation) SMR-160 (United States) HTR-PM (China) PBMR-400 (South Africa) GTHTR300 (Japan) HTMR-100 (South Africa) High temperature gas-cooled SMRs GT-MHR MHR-T (Russian Federation) (Russian Federation) EM2 SC-HTGR (United States) (United States) MHR-100 (Russian Federation) Xe-100 (United States) CEFR (China) PRISM (United States) Source: IAEA PFBR-500 (India) Gen4 Module (United States) Liquid-metal cooled fast SMRs 4S SVBR-100 (Japan) (Russian Federation) BREST-300 (Russian Federation) Table 4: Updated status on global SMR development as of September 2014 reactor design Water Cooled Reactors CAREM-25 ACP-100 Flexblue Reactor type Designer, country Capacity (MWe) / Configuration Integral pressurized water reactor Integral pressurized water reactor Subsea pressurized water reactor Design status CNEA, Argentina 27 Under construction CNNC (NPIC/CNPE), 100 Detailed China design DCNS, France 160 Conceptual design Page 18 of 39

20 AHWR300-LEU Pressure tube type heavy BARC, India 304 Basic design water moderated reactor IRIS Integral pressurized water IRIS, International 335 Basic design reactor Consortium DMS Boiling water reactor Hitachi-GE Nuclear 300 Basic design Energy, Japan IMR Integral modular water reactor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan 350 Conceptual design completed SMART Integral pressurized water reactor KAERI, Republic of Korea KLT-40S Pressurized water reactor OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation VBER-300 Westinghouse SMR Integral pressurized water reactor Integral pressurized water reactor OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, US SMR-160 Pressurized water reactor Holtec International, US High temperature gas cooled reactors HTR-PM Pebble Bed HTGR Tsinghua University, China GT-HTR300 Prismatic Block HTGR Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Japan GT-MHR Prismatic Block HTGR OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation MHR-T reactor/hydrogen production complex Prismatic Block HTGR OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation MHR-100 Prismatic Block HTGR OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation PBMR-400 Pebble Bed HTGR Pebble Bed Modular Reactor SOC Ltd, South Africa HTMR-100 Pebble Bed HTGR Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited (STL), South Africa 100 Licensed/Des ign certification received in July modules barge mounted Under construction, target of operation in Licensing stage 225 Preliminary design completed 160 Conceptual design 211 Under construction Basic design 285 Conceptual design completed 4 x Hydrogen production cogeneration Conceptual design Conceptual design 165 Detailed design 35 per module (140 for 4 module plant) Conceptual design, preparation for prelicense application SC-HTGR Prismatic Block HTGR AREVA, US 272 Conceptual design Xe-100 Pebble Bed HTGR X-energy, US 35 Conceptual design Liquid metal-cooled fast spectrum reactors CEFR Sodium-cooled fast reactors China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, China 20 In operation Page 19 of 39

21 PFBR-500 Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, India 500 Preparation for start-up, commissioni ng 4S Sodium-cooled fast reactor Toshiba Corporation 10 Detailed design BREST-OD-300 Lead-cooled fast reactor RDIPE, Russian Federation 300 Detailed design SVBR-100 Lead Bismuth cooled fast reactor AKME Engineering, Russian Federation 101 Conceptual design PRISM Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor GE Nuclear Energy 311 Detailed design EM2 G4M Source: IAEA High temperature heliumcooled fast reactor Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor General Atomics, US 240 Conceptual design Gen4 Energy Inc., US 25 Conceptual design Table 5: SMRs under construction for immediate deployment the front runners Country Reactor Model Output (MWe) Designer Number of units Site, Plant ID, and unit # Commercial Start Argentina CAREM CNEA 1 Near the Atucha-2 site 2017 ~ 2018 China HTR-PM 250 Tsinghua 2 mods, Shidaowan unit ~ 2018 Univ. /Harbin 1 turbine India PFBR IGCAR 1 Kalpakkam 2015 ~ 2016 Russian Federation KLT-40S (ship-borne) 70 OKBM Afrikantov 2 modules Akademik Lomonosov units 2016~2017 RITM-200 (Icebreaker) 50 OKBM Afrikantov Source: IAEA 2 modules 1 & 2 RITM-200 nuclear-propelled Icebreaker ship 2017 ~ 2018 Finally, it is important to highlight the fact that several countries are pioneers in the development and application of transportable nuclear power plants, including floating and seabed-based SMRs, such as the Russian Federation and the US. The distinct concepts of operations, staffing and security requirements, size of emergency planning zones, licensing process, legal and regulatory framework are the main issues for the deployment of this specific type of SMR The Current Situation and Perspectives of the SMRs Market in the US A 2011 report for US-DOE prepared by the University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute says development of small reactors can create an opportunity for the United Page 20 of 39

22 States to recapture a slice of the nuclear technology market that has eroded over the last several decades, due to the lack of any important investment in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the country. According to Rosner and Goldberg (2011), SMRs have the potential to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. They could provide alternative base load power generation to facilitate the retirement of older, smaller, and less efficient coal generation power plants that would, otherwise, not be good candidates for retrofitting carbon capture and storage technology. They could be deployed in regions of the US that have less potential for other forms of carbon-free electricity, such as solar or wind energy. There may be technical or market constraints, such as projected electricity demand growth and transmission capacity that would support SMR deployment, but not GWscale light water reactors. From the onshore manufacturing perspective, a key point is that the manufacturing base needed for SMRs can be developed domestically. Thus, while the large commercial nuclear industry is seeking to transplant portions of its supply chain in the US from current foreign sources, the SMR industry offers the potential to establish a large domestic manufacturing base building upon current US manufacturing infrastructure and capability, including the naval shipbuilding and idle domestic nuclear component and equipment facilities. A number of sustainable domestic jobs could be created that is, the full panoply array of design, manufacturing, supplier, and construction activities if the US can establish itself as a credible and substantial designer and manufacturer of SMRs. While many SMR technologies are being studied around the world, a strong US commercialization program can enable the US industry to be first to market SMRs, thereby serving as a fulcrum for export growth as well as a lever in influencing international decisions on deploying both nuclear power reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technology. All of this would enable the US to recapture technological leadership in commercial nuclear technology, which has been lost to suppliers in France, Japan, South Korea, Russia and, now rapidly emerging, China 16. While US nuclear supply companies have not been involved in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the country since 1978, the same US companies as well as companies from other countries have been involved in the construction of nuclear power plants abroad. In general, it can be said that SMRs could significantly mitigate the financial risk associated with the construction of large nuclear power plants, potentially allowing small units to compete effectively with other energy sources in many countries. What can be done in order to overcome the problems that the US nuclear industry has with the aim of expanding the nuclear market in the US? The following are three 16 Four integral pressurized water SMRs are under development in the US: Babcock &Wilcox s mpower; NuScale; SMR-160; and the Westinghouse SMR. Page 21 of 39

23 special market opportunities that may provide the additional market pull needed to successfully commercialize SMRs in the US: The federal government; International applications; The need for replacement of existing coal generation plants. The federal government - The federal government is the largest single consumer of electricity in the US, but its use of electricity is widely dispersed geographically and highly fragmented institutionally (i.e., many suppliers and customers). Current federal electricity procurement policies do not encourage aggregation of the demand, nor do they allow for agencies to enter into long-term contracts that are acceptable by suppliers. In addition, federal agencies are required to review and modify electricity purchases to comply with Executive Order issued by President Obama on October 5, The Executive Order calls for reductions in greenhouse gases by all federal agencies, with DOE establishing a target of a 28% reduction by 2020, including greenhouse gases associated with purchased electricity. Without any doubt, SMRs provide an excellent source to meet the President s Executive Order in addition to the adoption of others relevant measures. International applications - Previous studies have documented the potential for a significant export market for SMRs produced in the US, mainly for developed countries that do not have in some regions the demand or the necessary infrastructure to accommodate GW-scale light water reactors. Clearly substantial upgrades in all facets of infrastructure requirements, particularly in the safety and security areas, would have to be made. In addition, to the above it is important that the US offers a good financial scheme in order to provide the necessary resources to carry out this important investment not only for the construction of new SMRs inside the country, but in other countries as well. However, it is important to note that, according to Rosner (2011), studies performed by Argonne National Laboratory suggest that SMRs would appear to be a feasible power option for countries that have grid capacity of 2,000-3,000 MWe, and this positive factor should be in the mind of the US nuclear industry representatives when considering the construction of this type of reactor in some countries. The need for replacement of existing coal generation power plants - SMRs have the potential to replace existing coal generation power plants that may be retired in light of pending environmental regulations. A number of industry studies as well as recent EIA analysis indicate the potential for retirement of GWe of existing coal generation units in the US. These units are older, smaller (i.e., less than 500 MWe), and less energy efficient than most of the existing coal power plant fleet currently in operation, and lack the environmental controls needed to meet emerging air quality, water quality, and coal- Page 22 of 39

24 ash management requirements. Many of these plants could be retired by 2020 (Rosner and Goldberg, 2011). This is a good business opportunity for the US nuclear industry. Another important element associated with SMRs is related to their financing. As the cost of individual SMRs are much less than current GW conventional units, nuclear power plants comprising a number of SMRs are expected to have a capital cost and production cost comparable to one of these larger nuclear power plants. But any individual SMR unit within that nuclear power plant will potentially have a funding profile and flexibility otherwise impossible with larger nuclear power plants. As one unit is finished and starts producing electricity, it will generate positive cash flow for the next unit to be built. Westinghouse estimated that 1,000 MWe delivered by three IRIS units (SMRs) built at three year intervals financed at 10% for ten years require a maximum negative cash flow of less than US$ 700 million (compared with about three times that for a single 1,000 MWe unit). For developed countries, small modular units offer the opportunity of building as necessary; for developing countries, it may be the only option, because their electric grids cannot take units of 1,000 MWe of capacity. Despite of what has been said above, and due to the lack of a clear government nuclear policy supporting the use of this type of energy source for the generation of electricity, the US market perspective for SMRs are not yet strong enough to be considered by the US and by foreign nuclear and investment companies as a good business investment opportunity. The lack of sufficient funds to support the development of prototypes of different SMRs now under research and development, and a lack of a clear government nuclear energy policy mentioned earlier, are making more difficult any recovery for the US nuclear industry. Finally, it is important to highlight the following: In the US, recent attention has focused on SMR designs that have the most in common with the current generation of nuclear power reactor technology. In particular, the class of SMRs called integral pressurized water reactors (ipwrs) 17 is regarded as the least risky with regard to development, licensing, and commercial deployment, even though they still have many unique attributes that will require careful analysis (Lyman, 2013). This criterion could limit the possibility of the use of other types of SMRs currently under research and development. 17 The integral in ipwr refers to the characteristic that certain systems, structures, and components (SSCs) notably the steam generators, control rod drive mechanisms, and pressurizer are integrated into the reactor pressure vessel containing the nuclear fuel. In current-generation large PWRs, such SSCs are external to the pressure vessel. There is no technical reason that would prevent designers from integrating the SSCs into the pressure vessels of large PWRs. However, such hypothetical large integral pressure vessels would not be compatible with factory production because they would be too heavy to transport to reactor sites (using current methods), and therefore would have to be built on site. The integral design of small ipwrs has advantages and disadvantages. A potential safety benefit is that the design eliminates large-diameter piping outside of the reactor vessel, thus eliminating the possibility of a large-break loss-of-coolant accident from a ruptured pipe. (Such accidents are relatively low-probability events, so the reduction in overall risk may not be very significant). Of concern, incorporating the steam generators into the same space as the reactor core requires compact and sometimes novel geometries, such as helical coils. That increases the intensity of the radioactive environment in which the generators must operate, and could affect such issues as corrosion and also make the generators much more difficult to inspect and repair (Lyman, 2013). Page 23 of 39

25 The status of development and licensing for several SMR designs is summarized below: mpower (B&W): The mpower reactor is a 180-MWe PWR. B&W was awarded the first cost-sharing agreement under the DOE s SMR development program in November B&W has teamed up with BECHTEL and the Tennessee Valley Authority to design, license, and build a set of 2-6 mpower modules at TVA s Clinch River site. B&W plans to submit its design certification application to the NRC by the end of this year; NuScale: The NuScale reactor is an even smaller, 45-MWe PWR reactor module. NuScale Power will apply for the follow-on (second round) DOE program costsharing award that was just announced. It has partnered with FLUOR to develop and build the SMR, and is considering building its first SMR modules at the DOE Savannah River Site. It expects to submit its design certification application to the NRC some time in 2015; HOLTEC: HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL, which is developing a 160-MWe (light water) SMR, may also apply for the second DOE grant, and is also interested in constructing its SMR at the Savannah River site; WESTINGHOUSE: WESTINGHOUSE is developing a 225-MWe PWR that shares many design features of its larger AP1000 plant. It is partnering with Burns & McDonnell, Electric Boat, and the AMEREN utility to design, license, and build its first SMR plant at AMEREN s existing Callaway plant site in Missouri. It is expected to also apply for the second round of cost-sharing grants under the DOE s SMR program; Non-LWR SMRs: The most advanced non-light water SMR project is the Gen4 Energy s lead-bismuth-cooled 25-MWe reactor module (formerly Hyperion). Given the DOE s focus on near-term SMR deployment, however, and the NRC s indication that licensing a non-light water reactor will take a much longer amount of time, it is unclear whether non-light water SMRs have much prospect for winning a cost-sharing award under the DOE s current SMR development program. Gen4 Energy withdrew its application for the initial round of DOE grants and it is not clear if it will apply for the second round. A more detailed description of the US involvement in SMR activities can be found in several IAEA documents and reports, as well as in several WNA and WANO papers. Page 24 of 39

26 Source: DOE Fig. Three types of SMRs under development in the US 4.2- The Current Situation and Perspectives of the SMRs Market in Other Countries Undoubtedly, the future of nuclear power is in the Asia and the Pacific region, where most of the countries with important nuclear power programs and plans for the construction of dozens of new nuclear power reactors are located. Several Asian countries are developing SMR prototypes including China, Japan 18, India, and Republic of Korea 19. Elsewhere, the Russian Federation and some European countries, Argentina and South Africa have developed several designs, some already operating successfully. China - The most advanced SMRs project is in China, where CHINERGY is starting to build the SMR 210 MWe HTR-PM, which consists of twin 250 MWt high-temperature 18 The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) designed the MRX, a small ( MWt) integral PWR reactor for marine propulsion or local energy supply (30 MWe). The entire plant would be factory-built. It has conventional 4.3 % enriched PWR uranium oxide fuel with a 3.5-year refueling interval and has a water-filled containment to enhance safety. Little has been heard of it since the start of the Millennium. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have a conceptual design of Integrated Modular Reactor (IMR), a PWR of 1,000 MWt, 350 MWe. It has design life of 60 years, 4.8 % fuel enrichment and fuel cycle of 26 months. It has natural circulation for cooling. The project has involved Kyoto University, the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), and the Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC), with funding from METI. The target year to start licensing is 2020 at the earliest. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute's (JAERI's) High-Temperature Test Reactor (HTTR) of 30 MWt started up at the end of 1998 and has been run successfully at 850 C for 30 days. In 2004 it achieved 950 C outlet temperature. Its fuel is in prisms and its main purpose is to develop thermochemical means of producing hydrogen from water. Based on the HTTR, JAERI is developing the Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GTHTR) of up to 600 MWt per module. It uses improved HTTR fuel elements with 14% enriched uranium achieving high burn-up (112 GWd/t). Helium at 850 C drives a horizontal turbine at 47 % efficiency to produce up to 300 MWe (WANO sources). 19 On a larger scale, Republic of Korea s SMART (System-integrated Modular Advanced Reactor) is a 330 MWt pressurized water reactor with integral steam generators and advanced safety features. It is designed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) for generating electricity (up to 100 MWe) and/or thermal applications such as seawater desalination. Design life is 60 years, fuel enrichment 4.8 %, with a three-year refueling cycle. Residual heat removal is passive. While the basic design is complete, the absence of any orders for an initial reference unit has stalled development. It received standard design approval from the Korean regulator in mid-2012 and KAERI plans to build a 90 MWe demonstration plant to operate from A single unit can produce 90 MWe plus 40,000 m3/day of desalinated water (WANO sources) Page 25 of 39