Small modular reactor

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a proposed class of nuclear fission reactors, smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, which can be built in one location (such as a factory), then shipped, commissioned, and operated at a separate site. The term SMR refers to the size, capacity and modular construction only, not to the reactor type and the nuclear process which is applied. Designs range from scaled down versions of existing designs to generation IV designs. Both thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors have been proposed, along with molten salt and gas cooled reactor models.[1]

Illustration of a light water small modular nuclear reactor (SMR)

SMRs are typically anticipated to have an electrical power output of less than 300 MWe (electric) or less than 1000 MWth (thermal). Many SMR proposals rely on a manufacturing-centric model, requiring many deployments to secure economies of unit production large enough to achieve economic viability. Some SMR designs, typically those using Generation IV technologies, aim to secure additional economic advantage through improvements in electrical generating efficiency from much higher temperature steam generation. Ideally, modular reactors will reduce on-site construction, increase containment efficiency, and are claimed to enhance safety. The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention, a concept already implemented in some conventional nuclear reactor types. SMRs should also reduce staffing versus conventional nuclear reactors,[2][3] and are claimed to have the ability to bypass financial and safety barriers that inhibit the construction of conventional reactors.[3][4]

As of 2023, there are more than eighty modular reactor designs under development in 19 countries, and the first SMR units are in operation in Russia and China.[5] The floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov (operating in Pevek in Russia's Far East) is, as of October 2022, the first operating prototype in the world. The first unit of China’s pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor HTR-PM was connected to the grid in 2021.[5]

SMRs differ in terms of staffing, security and deployment time.[6] US government studies to evaluate SMR-associated risks have slowed licensing.[7][8][9] One concern with SMRs is preventing nuclear proliferation.[10][11]

Background

Economic factors of scale mean that nuclear reactors tend to be large, to such an extent that size itself becomes a limiting factor. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster caused a major set-back for the nuclear industry, with worldwide suspension of development, cutting down of funding, and closure of reactor plants.

In response, a new strategy was introduced aiming at building smaller reactors, which are faster to realize, safer, and at lower cost for a single reactor. Despite the loss of scale advantages and considerably less power output, funding was expected to be easier thanks to the introduction of modular construction and projects with expected shorter timescales. The generic SMR proposal is to swap the economies of unit scale for the economies of unit mass production.

Proponents claim that SMRs are less expensive due to the use of standardized modules that can be produced off-site.[12] SMRs do, however, also have some economic disadvantages.[13] Several studies suggest that the overall costs of SMRs are comparable with those of conventional large reactors. Moreover, extremely limited information about SMR modules transportation has been published.[14] Critics say that modular building will only be cost-effective at high quantities of the same types, given the still remaining high costs for each SMR. A high market share is needed to obtain sufficient orders.

Proponents say that nuclear energy with proven technology is safe; the nuclear industry contends that smaller size will make SMRs even safer than conventional plants. Critics say that more small reactors pose a higher risk, requiring more transportation of nuclear fuel and increased generation of waste. SMRs require new designs with new technology, the safety of which has yet to be proven.

Until 2020, no truly modular SMRs had been built.[15] In May 2020, the first prototype of a floating nuclear power plant with two 30 MWe reactors - the type KLT-40 - started operation in Pevek, Russia.[16] This concept is based on the design of nuclear icebreakers.[17] The operation of the first commercial land-based, 125 MWe demonstration reactor ACP100 (Linglong One) is due to start in China by the end of 2026.[18]

General aspects

Licensing

Once the first unit of a given design is licensed, licensing subsequent units should be drastically simpler, assuming that all units operate identically.

Scalability

A future power station using SMRs can begin with a single module and expand by adding modules as demand grows. This reduces startup costs associated with conventional designs.[19]

Some SMRs have a load-following design such that they can produce less electricity when demand is low.

Siting/infrastructure

SMRs will require much less land, e.g., the 470 MWe 3-loop Rolls-Royce SMR reactor takes 40,000 m2 (430,000 sq ft), 10% of that needed for a traditional plant.[20] This unit is too large to meet the definition of a small modular reactor and will require more on-site construction, which calls into question the claimed benefits of SMRs. The firm is targeting a 500-day construction time.[21]

Electricity needs in remote locations are usually small and variable, making them suitable for a smaller plant.[22] The smaller size may also reduce the need for a grid to distribute their output.

Flexibility of SMR

SMRs offer significant advantages over conventional style nuclear reactors due to the flexibility of their modular design. Flexibility in the capabilities of SMRs offers advantages, incremental load capacity, ability for adaptation to current nuclear powerplant sites, utilization for industrial applications, improved operating time, and the ability to be "grid independent".[23]

Safety

Containment is more efficient, and proliferation concerns are much less.[24] For example, a pressure release valve may have a spring that can respond to increasing pressure to increase coolant flow. Inherent safety features require no moving parts to work, depending only on physical laws.[25] Another example is a plug at the bottom of a reactor that melts away when temperatures are too high, allowing the reactor fuel to drain out of the reactor and lose critical mass.

A report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) considering 136 different historical and current reactors and SMR concepts stated: "Overall, SMRs could potentially achieve safety advantages compared to power plants with a larger power output, as they have a lower radioactive inventory per reactor and aim for a higher safety level especially through simplifications and an increased use of passive systems. In contrast, however, various SMR concepts also favour reduced regulatory requirements, for example, with regard to the required degree of redundancy or diversity in safety systems. Some developers even demand that current requirements be waived, for example in the area of internal accident management or with reduced planning zones, or even a complete waiver of external emergency protection planning. Since the safety of a reactor plant depends on all of these factors, based on the current state of knowledge it is not possible to state, that a higher safety level is achieved by SMR concepts in principle."[26][27][13]

Proliferation

Many SMRs are designed to use unconventional fuels that allow for higher burnup and longer fuel cycles.[4] Longer refueling intervals can decrease proliferation risks and lower chances of radiation escaping containment. For reactors in remote areas, accessibility can be troublesome, so longer fuel life can be helpful.

Designs
A nuclear fission chain is required to generate nuclear power.

SMRs are envisioned in multiple designs. Some are simplified versions of current reactors, others involve entirely new technologies.[28] All proposed SMRs use nuclear fission with designs including thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors.

Thermal-neutron reactors

Thermal-neutron reactors rely on a moderator to slow neutrons and generally use 235
U as fissile material. Most conventional operating reactors are of this type.

Fast reactors

Fast reactors don't use moderators. Instead they rely on the fuel to absorb higher speed neutrons. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuels. E.g., 239
Pu is more likely to absorb a high-speed neutron than 235
U.

Fast reactors can be breeder reactors. These reactors release enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of 238
U, the most easily found isotope. Once the 238
U undergoes a neutron absorption reaction, it becomes 239
Pu, which can be removed from the reactor during refueling, and subsequently used as fuel.[29]

Technologies

Cooling

Conventional reactors typically use water as a coolant.[30] SMRs may use water, liquid metal, gas and molten salt as coolants.[31][32] Coolant type is determined based on the reactor type, reactor design, and the chosen application. Large-rated reactors primarily use light water as coolant, allowing for this cooling method to be easily applied to SMRs. Helium is often elected as a gas coolant for SMRs because it yields a high plant thermal efficiency and supplies a sufficient amount of reactor heat. Sodium, lead, and lead-bismuth are common liquid metal coolants of choice for SMRs. There was a large focus on sodium during early work on large-rated reactors which has since carried over to SMRs to be a prominent choice as a liquid metal coolant.[33] SMRs have lower cooling water requirements, which expands the number of places a SMR could be built, including remote areas typically incorporating mining and desalination.[34]

Thermal/electrical generation

Some gas-cooled reactor designs could drive a gas-powered turbine, rather than boiling water, such that thermal energy can be used directly. Heat could also be used in hydrogen production and other commercial operations,[31] such as desalination and the production of petroleum products (extracting oil from oil sands, creating synthetic oil from coal, etc.).[35]

Load following

SMR designs are generally expected to provide base load power; some proposed designs can adjust their output based on demand.

Another approach, especially for SMRs that can provide high temperature heat, is to adopt cogeneration, maintaining consistent output, while diverting otherwise unneeded heat to an auxiliary use. District heating, desalination and hydrogen production have been proposed as cogeneration options.[36]

Overnight desalination requires sufficient freshwater storage to enable water to be delivered at times other than when it is produced.[37] Membrane and thermal are the two principal categories of desalination technology. The membrane desalination process uses only electricity and is employed the most out of the two technologies. In the thermal process, the feed water stream is evaporated in different stages with continuous decreases in pressure between the stages. The thermal process primarily uses thermal energy and does not include the intermediate conversion of thermal power to electricity. Thermal desalination technology is further divided into two principal technologies: the Multi Stage Flash distillation (MSF) and the Multi Effect Desalination (MED).[38]

Waste

One study reported that some types of SMR could produce more waste per unit of output than conventional reactors, in some cases more than 5x the spent fuel per kilowatt, and as much as 35x other waste products, such as active steel. Neutron leakage rates were estimated to be higher for SMRs, because in smaller reactor cores, emitted neutrons have fewer chances to interact with the fuel. Instead, they exit the core, where they are absorbed by the shielding, turning it radioactive. Reactor designs that use liquid metal coolants also become radioactive. Another potential issue is that a lower fraction of the fuel is consumed, increasing waste volumes. The potentially increased diversity of reactors may require accordingly diverse waste management systems.[39][40]

A report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management found that extensive interim storage and fuel transports would still be required for SMRs. A repository would still be required in any case.[13]

Many SMR designs are fast reactors that have higher fuel burnup, reducing the amount of waste. At higher neutron energy more fission products can usually be tolerated. Breeder reactors "burn" 235
U, but convert fertile materials such as 238
U into usable fuels.[29]

Some reactor designs utilise the thorium fuel cycle, which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to the uranium cycle.[41]

The traveling wave reactor immediately uses fuel that it breeds without requiring the fuel's removal and cleaning.[42]

Safety

Some proposed SMRs use cooling systems that use thermoconvection – natural circulation – to eliminate cooling pumps that could break down. Convection can keep removing decay heat after reactor shutdown.

Negative temperature coefficients in the moderators and the fuels keep the fission reactions under control, causing the reaction to slow as temperature increases.[43]

Some SMRs may need an active cooling system to back up the passive system, increasing cost.[44] Additionally, SMR designs may have less need for containment structures.[8]

Some SMR designs bury the reactor and spent-fuel storage pools underground.

Smaller reactors would be easier to upgrade.[45]

SMRs maintain core cooling with a passive safety system which eliminates the need for pressure injection systems. With a passive safety system, emergency AC power sourced from a diesel generator is not required for core cooling. A passive safety system is simpler, requires less testing, and does not lead to inadvertent initiation. SMRs do not require an active containment heat system due to passive heat rejection out of containment and a containment spray system is not required. An emergency feedwater system is not necessary for SMRs, allowing for core heat removal and enhancing safety.[46]

SMRs featuring water and sodium coolants increase reactor safety through their ability to withhold byproducts of the fissile fuel introduced into the coolants during a severe accident. This characteristic of a SMR allows for the ability of a SMR to mitigate the release of fissile material, contaminating the environment, in the event of a failure to maintain containment of nuclear material occurred.[33]

Some SMR designs feature an integral design of which the primary reactor core, steam generator and the pressurizer are integrated within the sealed reactor vessel. This integrated design allows for the reduction of a possible accident as radiation leaks can easily be contained. In comparison to larger reactors having numerous components outside the reactor vessel, this feature drastically increases the safety by decreasing the chance of an uncontained accident. Furthermore, this feature allows many SMR designs to bury the reactor and spent-fuel storage pools underground at the end of their service life, therefore increasing the safety of waste disposal.[23]

Flexibility of SMR

Small nuclear reactors, in comparison to conventional nuclear power generation plants, offer many advantages due to the flexibility of their modular construction.[23] This flexibility in the modularity of a SMR system allows for additional units to be incrementally added in the event load on the grid increases. Additionally, this flexibility in a standardized SMRs design revolving around modularity allows for rapid production at a decreasing cost following the completion of the first reactor on site.[23][47]

The hypothesised flexibility and modularity of SMR allows additional power generation capability to be installed at existing power plants. Modularity of a SMR plant allows for "a single site can have three or four SMRs, allowing one to go off-line for refueling while the other reactors stay online".[23]

The flexibility of SMRs provides additional opportunities for industrial usage through saving energy lost through the transfer of energy from thermal to electrical. Applications for a SMR under these conditions of direct energy transfer include "desalination, industrial processes, hydrogen production, oil shale recovery, and district heating" of which a conventional large reactor is not capable.[23][48]

Economics

A key driver of interest in SMRs is the claimed economies of scale in production, due to volume manufacture in an offsite factory. Some studies instead find the capital cost of SMRs to be equivalent to larger reactors.[49] Substantial capital is needed to construct the factory - ameliorating that cost requires significant volume, estimated to be 40–70 units.[50][51]

According to a 2014 study of electricity production in decentralized microgrids, the total cost of using SMRs for electricity generation would be significantly lower compared to the total cost of offshore wind, solar thermal, biomass, and solar photovoltaic electricity generation plants.[46]

Construction costs per SMR reactor were claimed in 2016 to be less than that for a conventional nuclear plant, while exploitation costs may be higher for SMRs due to low scale economics and the higher number of reactors. SMR staff operating costs per unit output can be as much as 190% higher than the fixed operating cost of fewer large reactors.[52] Modular building is a very complex process and there is "extremely limited information about SMR modules transportation", according to a 2019 report.[14]

A production cost calculation done by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), taking into account economies of scale and learning effects from the nuclear industry, suggests that an average of 3,000 SMR would have to be produced before SMR production would be worthwhile. This is because the construction costs of SMRs are relatively higher than those of large nuclear power plants due to the low electrical output.[53]

In 2017, an Energy Innovation Reform Project study of eight companies looked at reactor designs with capacity between 47.5 MWe and 1,648 MWe.[54] The study reported average capital cost of $3,782/kW, average operating cost total of $21/MWh and levelized cost of electricity of $60/MWh.

In 2020, Energy Impact Center founder Bret Kugelmass claimed that thousands of SMRs could be built in parallel, "thus reducing costs associated with long borrowing times for prolonged construction schedules and reducing risk premiums currently linked to large projects."[55] GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Executive Vice President Jon Ball agreed, saying the modular elements of SMRs would also help reduce costs associated with extended construction times.[55]

Estimated target electricity generation price is $89/MWh in 2023, increased from $58/MWh in 2021, for the first planned U.S. commercial deployment of SMRs at Idaho National Laboratory of six NuScale 77 MWe reactors. The project has $1.355 billion of U.S. government support plus an estimated $30/MWh generation subsidy from the 2020 Inflation Reduction Act.[56][57][58]

Licensing

A major barrier to SMR adoption is the licensing process. It was developed for conventional, custom-built reactors, preventing the simple deployment of identical units at different sites.[59] In particular, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing has focused mainly on conventional reactors. Design and safety specifications, staffing requirements and licensing fees have all been geared toward reactors with electrical output of more than 700MWe.[60] With a sizable focus on large reactors, it is probable that many countries will have to adapt their policies to coincide with SMRs, which can be a costly and time-consuming process. The International Atomic Energy Agency has placed emphasis on creating a central licensing system for SMRs to ensure proper guidelines in the interest of overall public safety.[61]

SMRs caused a reevaluation of the licensing process for nuclear reactors. One workshop in October 2009 and another in June 2010 considered the topic, followed by a Congressional hearing in May 2010. Multiple US agencies are working to define SMR licensing. However, some argue that weakening safety regulations to push the development of SMRs may offset their enhanced safety characteristics.[62][63]

The U.S. Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program was expected to help license and build two prototype SMRs during the 2020s, with up to $4 billion of government funding.[64]

Nuclear proliferation

Nuclear proliferation, or the use of nuclear materials to create weapons, is a concern for small modular reactors. As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically smaller, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than conventional plants.[65] SMRs are expected to substantially reduce staffing levels. The combination creates physical protection and security concerns.[10][30]

Many SMRs are designed to address these concerns. Fuel can be low-enriched uranium, with less than 20% fissile 235
U. This low quantity, sub-weapons-grade uranium is less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the mixture of fission products and fissile materials is highly radioactive and requires special handling, preventing casual theft.

Contrasting to conventional large reactors, SMRs can without difficulty be adapted to be installed in a sealed underground chamber; therefore, "reducing the vulnerability of the reactor to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster".[23] New SMR designs enhance the proliferation resistance, such as those from the reactor design company Gen4. These models of SMR offer a solution capable of operating sealed underground for the life of the reactor following installation.[23][47]

Some SMR designs are designed for one-time fueling. This improves proliferation resistance by eliminating on-site nuclear fuel handling and means that the fuel can be sealed within the reactor. However, this design requires large amounts of fuel, which could make it a more attractive target. A 200 MWe 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium at end of life.[30]

Furthermore, many SMRs offer the ability to go periods of greater than 10 years without requiring any form of refueling therefore improving the proliferation resistance as compared to conventional large reactors of which entail refueling every 18–24 months[23]

Light-water reactors designed to run on thorium offer increased proliferation resistance compared to the conventional uranium cycle, though molten salt reactors have a substantial risk.[66][67]

SMR are transported from the factories without fuel, as they are fueled on the ultimate site, except some microreactors.[68]

List of reactor designs
Main article: List of small modular reactor designs

Numerous reactor designs have been proposed. Notable SMR designs:

  Design   Licensing   Under construction   Operational   Cancelled   Retired

The stated power refers to the capacity of one reactor unless specified otherwise.

List of small nuclear reactor designs[69][ view/edit ]
Name Gross power (MWe) Type Producer Country Status
4S10–50SFRToshibaJapanDetailed design
ABV-66–9PWROKBM AfrikantovRussiaDetailed design
ACP100 Linglong One125PWRChina National Nuclear CorporationChinaUnder construction[70]
TMSR-LF110[71]MSRChina National Nuclear CorporationChinaUnder construction
AP300[72]300PWRWestinghouse Electric CompanyUnited StatesDetailed design
ARC-100100SFRARC NuclearCanadaDesign: Vendor design review.[73] One unit planned for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in December 2019.[74]
MMR5-15HTGRUltra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC)United States/CanadaLicensing stage[75]
ANGSTREM[76]6LFROKB GidropressRussiaConceptual design
B&W mPower195PWRBabcock & WilcoxUnited StatesCancelled in March 2017
BANDI-6060PWRKEPCOSouth KoreaDetailed design[77]
BREST-OD-300[78]300LFRAtomenergopromRussiaUnder construction[79]
BWRX-300[80]300BWRGE Hitachi Nuclear EnergyUnited States/JapanLicensing stage
CAREM27–30PWRCNEAArgentinaUnder construction
Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner50MSRCopenhagen AtomicsDenmarkConceptual design
HTMR-100 35 GTMHR Stratek Global South Africa Conceptual design[70]
HTR-PM 210 (2 reactors one turbine) HTGR China Huaneng China One reactor operational. Station connected to the grid in December 2021.[81]
ELENA[82]0.068PWRKurchatov InstituteRussiaConceptual design
Energy Well[83]8.4MSRcs:Centrum výzkumu Řež[84]CzechiaConceptual design
eVinci[85]5HPRWestinghouse Electric CompanyUnited StatesLicensing stage
Flexblue160PWRAreva TA / DCNS groupFranceConceptual design
Fuji MSR200MSRInternational Thorium Molten Salt Forum (ITMSF)JapanConceptual design
GT-MHR285GTMHROKBM AfrikantovRussiaConceptual design completed
G4M25LFRGen4 EnergyUnited StatesConceptual design
GT-MHR50GTMHRGeneral Atomics, FramatomUnited States/FranceConceptual design
IMSR400195 (x2)MSRTerrestrial Energy[86]CanadaDetailed design
TMSR-500500MSRThorCon[87]IndonesiaConceptual design
IRIS335PWRWestinghouse-ledinternationalDesign (Basic)
KLT-40S Akademik Lomonosov70PWROKBM AfrikantovRussiaOperating, May 2020[16] (floating plant)
Last Energy 20 PWR Last Energy United States Conceptual design[88]
MCSFR50–1000MCSFRElysium IndustriesUnited StatesConceptual design
MHR-10025–87HTGROKBM AfrikantovRussiaConceptual design
MHR-T[lower-alpha 1]205.5 (x4)HTGROKBM AfrikantovRussiaConceptual design
MRX30–100PWRJAERIJapanConceptual design
NP-300100–300PWRAreva TAFranceConceptual design
NuScale77PWRNuScale Power LLCUnited StatesEarlier 50 MWe version licensed[89]
Nuward170PWRconsortiumFranceConceptual design, construction anticipated in 2030[90][91]
OPEN100100PWREnergy Impact CenterUnited StatesConceptual design[92]
PBMR-400165HTGREskomSouth AfricaCancelled. Postponed indefinitely.[7]
Rolls-Royce SMR470PWRRolls-RoyceUnited KingdomLicensing stage[93]
SEALER[94][95]55LFRLeadColdSwedenDesign stage
SMART100PWRKAERISouth KoreaLicensed
SMR-160160PWRHoltec InternationalUnited StatesConceptual design
SVBR-100[96][97]100LFROKB GidropressRussiaDetailed design
SSR-W300–1000MSRMoltex Energy[98]United KingdomDesign: Phase 1 vendor design review.[99] One unit approved for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in July 2018.[100]
S-PRISM311FBRGE Hitachi Nuclear EnergyUnited States/JapanDetailed design
U-Battery4HTGRU-Battery consortium[lower-alpha 2]United KingdomCancelled. Design archived[101]
VBER-300325PWROKBM AfrikantovRussiaLicensing stage
VK-300250BWRAtomstroyexportRussiaDetailed design
VVER-300300BWROKB GidropressRussiaConceptual design
Westinghouse SMR225PWRWestinghouse Electric CompanyUnited StatesCancelled. Preliminary design completed.[102]
Xe-10080HTGRX-energy[103]United StatesConceptual design development
Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report.[69] Not all IAEA reactors are listed there are added yet and some are added (anno 2021) that were not yet listed in the now dated IAEA report.
  1. Multi-unit complex based on the GT-MHR reactor design
  2. Urenco Group in collaboration with Jacobs and Kinectrics

Proposed sites

Canada

In 2018, the Canadian province of New Brunswick announced it would invest $10 million for a demonstration project at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.[104] It was later announced that SMR proponents Advanced Reactor Concepts[105] and Moltex[106] would open offices there.

On 1 December 2019, the Premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan signed a memorandum of understanding [107] "committing to collaborate on the development and deployment of innovative, versatile and scalable nuclear reactors, known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)."[108] They were joined by Alberta in August 2020.[109] With continued support from citizens and government officials have led to the execution of a selected SMR at the Canadian National Nuclear Laboratory.[33]

In 2021, Ontario Power Generation announced they plan to build a BWRX-300 SMR at their Darlington site to be completed by 2028. A licence for construction still had to be applied for.[110]

On 11 August 2022, Invest Alberta, the Government of Alberta’s crown corporation signed a MOU with Terrestrial Energy regarding IMSR in Western Canada through an interprovincial MOU it joined earlier.[111]

China

In July 2019, China National Nuclear Corporation announced it would build an ACP100 SMR on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant at Changjiang, in the Hainan province by the end of the year.[112] On 7 June 2021, the demonstration project, named the Linglong One, was approved by China's National Development and Reform Commission.[113] In July, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) started construction,[114] and in October 2021, the containment vessel bottom of the first of two units was installed. It is the world's first commercial land-based SMR prototype.[18]

In August 2023 the core module was installed. The core module includes an integrated pressure vessel, steam generator, primary pump receiver. The reactor's planned capacity is 125 MWe.[115]

Poland

Polish chemical company Synthos declared plans to deploy a Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor (300 MW) in Poland by 2030.[116] A feasibility study was completed in December 2020 and licensing started with the Polish National Atomic Energy Agency.[117]

In February 2022, NuScale Power and the large mining conglomerate KGHM Polska Miedź announced signing of contract to construct first operational reactor in Poland by 2029.[118]

United Kingdom

In 2016, it was reported that the UK Government was assessing Welsh SMR sites - including the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Sizewell, Sellafield, and Wylfa were stated to be possibilities.[119] The target cost for a 470 MWe Rolls-Royce SMR unit is £1.8 billion for the fifth unit built.[120][121] In 2020, it was reported that Rolls-Royce had plans to construct up to 16 SMRs in the UK. In 2019, the company received £18 million to begin designing the modular system.[122] An additional £210 million was awarded to Rolls-Royce by the British government in 2021, complemented by a £195 million contribution from private firms.[123] In November 2022 Rolls-Royce announced that the sites at Trawsfynydd, Wylfa, Sellafield and Oldbury would be prioritised for assessment as potential locations for multiple SMRs.[124]

The British government launched Great British Nuclear in July 2023 to administer a competition to create SMRs, and will co-fund any viable project.[125]

United States

In December 2019, the Tennessee Valley Authority was authorized to receive an Early Site Permit (ESP) by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for siting an SMR at its Clinch River site in Tennessee.[126] This ESP is valid for 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness. This ESP is applicable for any light-water reactor SMR design under development in the United States.[127]

The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced a partnership with Energy Northwest to explore siting a NuScale Power reactor in Idaho, possibly on the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.[128]

The Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Galena, Alaska was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation. It was a potential deployment for the Toshiba 4S reactor.

Romania

On the occasion of 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the state-owned Romanian nuclear energy company Nuclearelectrica and NuScale signed an agreement to build a power plant with six small-scale nuclear reactors on the site of a former coal power plant, located in the village of Doicești, Dâmbovița county, 90 km North of Bucharest. The project is estimated to be completed by 2026–2027, which will make the power plant the first of its kind in Europe. The power plant will generate 462 MWe, securing the consumption of about 46.000 households and will help avoid the release of 4 million tons of CO2 per year.[129][130][131]

References
  1. Berniolles, Jean-Marie (29 November 2019). "De-mystifying small modular reactors". Sustainability Times. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  2. "The Galena Project Technical Publications", p. 22, Burns & Roe
  3. "Small Modular Reactors: Nuclear Energy Market Potential for Near-term Deployment" (PDF). OECD-NEA.org. 2016.
  4. Furfari, Samuele (31 October 2019). "Squaring the energy circle with SMRs". Sustainability Times. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  5. Perera, Judith (18 January 2023). "IAEA ups support for SMRs". Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved 24 January 2023.
  6. "Licensing Small Modular Reactors: An Overview of Regulatory and Policy Issues" (PDF). Hoover Institution. 2015.
  7. "World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org.
  8. "Small isn't always beautiful" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. 2013. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
  9. Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio; Sainati, Tristano (20 June 2020). "Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors". Energy. 206: 118137. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118137.
  10. Greneche, Dominique (18 June 2010), Proliferation issues related to the deployment of Small & Medium Size reactors (SMRs) (PDF), AREVA, archived from the original (presentation) on 24 March 2017
  11. Trakimavičius, Lukas (November 2020). "Is Small Really Beautiful? The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) In The Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence.
  12. Trakimavičius, Lukas. "Is Small Really Beautiful?The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) In The Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  13. Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung (10 March 2021). "Small Modular Reactors - Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten?" (in German).
  14. Mignacca, Benito; Hasan Alawneh, Ahmad; Locatelli, Giorgio (27 June 2019). Transportation of small modular reactor modules: What do the experts say?. 27th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering.
  15. Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio (1 November 2019). "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 118: 109519. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109519.
  16. Akademik Lomonosov-1, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020-09-13.
  17. "Russia connects floating plant to grid". World Nuclear News. 19 December 2019. Alexey Likhachov, director general of state nuclear corporation Rosatom, said Akademik Lomonosov had thus becomes the world's first nuclear power plant based on SMR technology to generate electricity.
  18. Installation of containment starts at Chinese SMR. WNN, 25 Oct 2021
  19. Mignacca, B.; Locatelli, G. (1 February 2020). "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 118: 109519. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109519. ISSN 1364-0321.
  20. Small Modular Reactors UK, promotion brochure (PDF) (Report). Rolls-Royce. 2017. (5.5 MB)
  21. UK SMR – brochure with specifications (PDF) (Report). Rolls-Royce. 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 June 2019. (5 MB) Archived
  22. Report to Congress 2001, p. 8
  23. Cunningham, Nick (2012). Small modular reactors : a possible path forward for nuclear power. American Security Project. OCLC 813390081.
  24. "Small Modular Reactors", Department of Energy – Office of Nuclear Energy
  25. "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors", World Nuclear Association
  26. Sicherheitstechnische Analyse und Risikobewertung einer Anwendung von SMR-Konzepten (Small Modular Reactors). BASE, März 2021
  27. Für die Zukunft zu spät. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 9. März 2021
  28. INEA, NEA, IEA. "Innovative Nuclear Reactor Development: Opportunities for International Co-operation", OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
  29. Carlson, J. "Fast Neutron Reactors", World Nuclear Association
  30. Glaser, Alexander (5 November 2014), Small Modular Reactors - Technology and Deployment Choices (presentation), NRC
  31. Wilson, P.D. "Nuclear Power Reactors", World Nuclear Association
  32. brian wang (13 October 2011). "Flibe Energy Liquid Flouride [sic] Thorium Reactor Company". Nextbigfuture.com. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  33. Carelli, Mario D., Ingersoll, D. T. (22 October 2020). Handbook of small modular nuclear reactors. ISBN 978-0-12-823917-9. OCLC 1222802880.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. "Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  35. "Nuclear Process Heat for Industry", World Nuclear Association
  36. Locatelli, Giorgio; Fiordaliso, Andrea; Boarin, Sara; Ricotti, Marco E. (1 May 2017). "Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors" (PDF). Progress in Nuclear Energy. 97: 153–161. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.012.
  37. Locatelli, Giorgio; Boarin, Sara; Pellegrino, Francesco; Ricotti, Marco E. (1 February 2015). "Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis" (PDF). Energy. 80: 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040. hdl:11311/881391.
  38. Locatelli, Giorgio; Boarin, Sara; Pellegrino, Francesco; Ricotti, Marco E. (2015). "Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis". Energy. 80: 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040. ISSN 0360-5442.
  39. Barber, Gregory. "Smaller Reactors May Still Have a Big Nuclear Waste Problem". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 3 August 2022.
  40. Krall, Lindsay M.; Macfarlane, Allison M.; Ewing, Rodney C. (7 June 2022). "Nuclear waste from small modular reactors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (23): e2111833119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2111833119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9191363. PMID 35639689.
  41. Section 5.3, WASH 1097 "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors", available as a PDF from Liquid-Halide Reactor Documents database: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/
  42. Wald, M. "TR10: Traveling Wave Reactor", Technology Review
  43. DOE-HDBK-1019 1993, pp. 23–29
  44. "Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost Concerns (2013)". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
  45. [Moniz, Ernest. "Why We Still Need Nuclear Power: Making Clean Energy Safe and Affordable." Foreign Affairs 90, no. 6 (November 2011): 83-94.]
  46. Islam, Md. Razibul; Gabbar, Hossam A. (6 June 2014). "Study of small modular reactors in modern microgrids". International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems. 25 (9): 1943–1951. doi:10.1002/etep.1945. ISSN 2050-7038.
  47. Ingersoll, D.T. (2009). "Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 51 (4–5): 589–603. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2009.01.003. ISSN 0149-1970.
  48. Locatelli, Giorgio; Fiordaliso, Andrea; Boarin, Sara; Ricotti, Marco E. (2017). "Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 97: 153–161. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.012. ISSN 0149-1970.
  49. Carelli, Mario; Petrovic, B; Mycoff, C; Trucco, Paolo; Ricotti, M.E.; Locatelli, Giorgio (1 January 2007). "Economic comparison of different size nuclear reactors". Simposio LAS/ANS 2007 – via ResearchGate.
  50. Harrabin, Roger (23 March 2016). "The nuclear industry: a small revolution". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
  51. Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio; Sainati, Tristano (20 June 2020). "Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors". Energy. 206: 118137. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118137.
  52. Small modular reactors - Can building nuclear power become more cost-effective? (PDF). Ernst & Young (Report). gov.uk. March 2016. p. 38. Retrieved 29 February 2020.
  53. Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung (10 March 2021). "Small Modular Reactors - Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten?" (in German).
  54. EIRP (1 July 2017). "What Will Advanced Nuclear Power Plants Cost?". Energy Innovation Reform Project. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
  55. Day, Paul (21 July 2020). "Industry heads warn nuclear costs must be slashed". Reuters. Retrieved 25 January 2023.
  56. "UAMPS downsizes NuScale SMR plans". NuclearNewswire. American Nuclear Society. 21 July 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2023.
  57. "Further cost refinements announced for first US SMR plant". World Nuclear News. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2023.
  58. Schlissel, David (11 January 2023). "Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor". Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  59. Sainati, Tristano; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi (15 March 2015). "Small Modular Reactors: Licensing constraints and the way forward" (PDF). Energy. 82: 1092–1095. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.079.
  60. Rysavy, C., Rhyne, S., Shaw, R. "Small Modular Reactors", ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources – Special Committee on Nuclear Power
  61. Black, R.L. (2015), "Licensing of small modular reactors (SMRs)", Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Elsevier, pp. 279–292, doi:10.1533/9780857098535.3.279, ISBN 9780857098511, retrieved 1 May 2022
  62. "Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)". Energy.gov. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
  63. "Small isn't always beautiful" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. 2013. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
  64. Cho, Adrian (20 May 2020). "U.S. Department of Energy rushes to build advanced new nuclear reactors". Science. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
  65. Trakimavičius, Lukas (November 2020). "Is Small Really Beautiful?The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) In The Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence.
  66. Kang, J.; Von Hippel, F. N. (2001). "U‐232 and the proliferation‐resistance of U‐233 in spent fuel". Science & Global Security. 9 (1): 1–32. Bibcode:2001S&GS....9....1K. doi:10.1080/08929880108426485. S2CID 8033110. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  67. Ashley, Stephen (2012). "Thorium fuel has risks". Nature. 492 (7427): 31–33. Bibcode:2012Natur.492...31A. doi:10.1038/492031a. PMID 23222590. S2CID 4414368.
  68. Office of Nuclear Energy. "What is a Nuclear Microreactor?". Office of Nuclear Energy. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
  69. "IAEA Report: UPDATED STATUS ON GLOBAL SMR_DEVELOPMENT as of September 2014" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 October 2014.
  70. "China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project". Reuters. 14 July 2021. Archived from the original on 13 July 2021. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
  71. "Thorium Molten Salt Reactor China".
  72. "Westinghouse Unveils Game-Changing AP300™ Small Modular Reactor for Mid-Sized Nuclear Technology".
  73. "ARC-100 passes Canadian pre-licensing milestone". World Nuclear News. 2 October 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
  74. "N.B. makes step forward on second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau". Atlantic. 9 December 2019. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  75. "Formal licence review begins for Canadian SMR". World Nuclear News. 20 May 2021. Archived from the original on 22 May 2021. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  76. "The ANGSTREM Project: Present Status and Development Activities" (PDF). Retrieved 22 June 2017.
  77. "Kepco E&C teams up with shipbuilder for floating reactors". World Nuclear News. 6 October 2020. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
  78. "Error" (PDF).
  79. "Specialists of JSC concern TITAN-2 continue to work at the site of the proryv project in Seversk" (in Russian).
  80. "BWRX-300".
  81. "Demonstration HTR-PM connected to grid". www.world-nuclear-news.org. 21 December 2021.
  82. "Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments" (PDF).
  83. "Medlov FHR v1" (PDF).
  84. "První milník: koncepční návrh malého modulárního reaktoru byl představen veřejnosti | Centrum výzkumu Řež". cvrez.cz.
  85. "Westinghouse Begins Joint Licensing Process with U.S. and Canadian Regulators for eVinci™ Microreactor".
  86. "Terrestrial Energy | Integral Molten Salt Reactor Technology". Terrestrial Energy. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
  87. "ThorCon | Thorium Molten Salt Reactor". ThorCon Power. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
  88. Halper, Evan (18 February 2023). "See how this company plans to transform nuclear power". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
  89. Crownhart, Casey (8 February 2023). "We were promised smaller nuclear reactors. Where are they?". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
  90. "French-developed SMR design unveiled". World Nuclear News. 17 September 2019. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  91. "EDF announces the establishment of the International NUWARD Advisory Board" (Press release). EDF. 2 December 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
  92. Proctor, Darrell (25 February 2020). "Tech Guru's Plan—Fight Climate Change with Nuclear Power". Power Magazine. Retrieved 23 November 2021.
  93. "Rolls-Royce SMR begins UK Generic Design Assessment - Nuclear Engineering International".
  94. "SMR Book 2020" (PDF).
  95. "Home". www.leadcold.com.
  96. "Coastal Co-generating Water Desalinating Facility Powered by Replaceable SVBR 75/100 Nuclear Reactor" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 October 2014. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
  97. "SVBR AKME Antysheva" (PDF).
  98. "Moltex Energy | Safer Cheaper Cleaner Nuclear | Stable Salt Reactors | SSR". moltexenergy.com. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
  99. "Phase 1 pre-licensing vendor design review executive summary: Moltex Energy". 25 May 2021. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
  100. "Moltex molten salt reactor being built in New Brunswick Canada". NextBigFuture. 19 July 2018. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
  101. "Urenco ends its support for U-Battery advanced reactor". Nuclear Engineering International. 22 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  102. Litvak, Anya (2 February 2014). "Westinghouse backs off small nuclear plants". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
  103. "Energy Department Announces New Investments in Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors..." US Department of Energy. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
  104. Government of New Brunswick, Canada (26 June 2018). "$10 million committed for nuclear research cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
  105. Government of New Brunswick, Canada (9 July 2018). "Partner announced in nuclear research cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
  106. Government of New Brunswick, Canada (13 July 2018). "Moltex to partner in nuclear research and innovation cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
  107. "COLLABORATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" (PDF). Government of Ontario. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
  108. "Premier Ford, Premier Higgs and Premier Moe Sign Agreement on the Development of Small Modular Reactors". ontario.ca. Government of Ontario. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
  109. "Opinion: Small nuclear reactors can play big role in clean energy transition". calgaryherald.
  110. OPG chooses BWRX-300 SMR for Darlington new build. WNN, 2 Dec 2021
  111. "Pact signed to advance IMSR development in western Canada". NuclearNewswire. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
  112. "CNNC launches demonstration SMR project". World Nuclear News. 22 July 2019.
  113. "China approves construction of demonstration SMR : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News". world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved 13 July 2021.
  114. Reuters Staff (13 July 2021). "China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project". Reuters. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  115. Largue, Pamela (11 August 2023). "Core module instaled at China's Linglong One modular reactor". Power Engineering International. Retrieved 13 August 2023.
  116. "Billionaire Pole to build nuclear reactor". www.thefirstnews.com. Retrieved 17 February 2020.
  117. "Feasibility study completed on SMRs for Poland - Nuclear Engineering International". www.neimagazine.com. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  118. "NuScale, KGHM agree to deploy SMRs in Poland". February 2022.
  119. McCann, Kate (2 April 2016). "Mini nuclear power stations in UK towns move one step closer". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
  120. "UK confirms funding for Rolls-Royce SMR". World Nuclear News. 7 November 2019. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  121. Macfarlane-Smith, Sophie (8 September 2021). "Rolls-Royce SMR - Nuclear Academics Meeting" (PDF). Rolls-Royce. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  122. "Rolls-Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK". BBC News. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
  123. "Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors". BBC. 9 November 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
  124. "Study identifies potential Rolls-Royce SMR sites". World Nuclear News. 11 November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
  125. "Nuclear energy: How environmentally-friendly and safe is it?". BBC News. 17 July 2023. Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  126. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (17 December 2019). "NRC to Issue Early Site Permit to Tennessee Valley Authority for Clinch River Site" (PDF). nrc.gov. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
  127. "TVA - Small Modular Reactors". www.tva.gov. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
  128. "Carbon Free". www.uamps.com. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
  129. Chirileasa, Andrei (24 May 2022). "Romania, the US agree on location of first small-scale nuclear reactor". Romania Insider. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
  130. "Prima centrală cu mini reactor nuclear din Europa va fi la Doicești, Dâmbovița. Cum funcționează o centrală SMR". Europa Liberă România (in Romanian). Retrieved 22 November 2022.
  131. AGERPRES. "Ghiţă (Nuclearelectrica): Suntem încrezători în potenţialul pe care amplasamentul de la." www.agerpres.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 22 November 2022.

Further reading
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Small modular reactors.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.