Small Modular Reactors for Meeting the Electricity Needs in Developing Countries

Ioannis N. Kessides1 and Vladimir Kuznetsov2

April 2012

1 The World Bank2 International Atomic Energy Agency

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Financial support from the Knowledge for Change Program (KCP) of the World Bank is gratefully acknowledged.

CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………..xx

References to Chapter 1……………………………………………………………………..

2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY………………………………………………………….

2.1 Energy demand and nuclear power prospects in developing countries (TBD)…………

2.2. Historical developments for small and medium sized reactors……………………………

2.2.1 Evolution of smaller reactor design concepts………………………………………………

2.2.2 Success stories for smaller nuclear reactors………………………………………………..

2.2.3 Previous and ongoing projects on introduction of smaller reactors to developing countries

2.3 Conclusion to Chapter 2 (partly TBD)…………………………………………………….

References to Chapter 2 (partly TBD)……………………………………………………

3. DESIGN STATUS AND DEPLOYMENT PROSPECTS FOR SMALL MODULAR REACTORS………………………………………………………………………………….

3.1 Introduction to Chapter 3……………………………………………………………………

3.2 Pressurized water reactors…………………………………………………………………..

3.3 Gas cooled reactors………………………………………………………………………….

3.4 Sodium cooled fast reactors…………………………………………………………………

3.5 Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors…………………………………………………………..

3.6 Conclusion to Chapter 3……………………………………………………………………..

References to Chapter 3

4. CONSIDERATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY HOLDERS…………………………………

Conclusion to Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………….

References to Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………….

5. CONSIDERATIONS OF USERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES…………………..

5.1 Introduction to Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………

5.2 Proveness of design and technology………………………………………………………..

5.3 Reactor type and plant capacity……………………………………………………………

5.4 Plant design…………………………………………………………………………………..

5.5 Construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning……………………….

5.6 Economics and financing……………………………………………………………………

5.7 Nuclear safety and licensing………………………………………………………………..

5.8 Support from the vendor……………………………………………………………………

5.9 Local participation and technology transfer………………………………………………

5.10 Proliferation resistance…………………………………………………………………….

5.11 Physical protection…………………………………………………………………………..

5.12 New developments regarding common user considerations for small and medium sized reactors………………………………………………………………………………………

5.13 Conclusion to Chapter 5…………………………………………………………………….

References to Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………

6. BENEFITS AND ISSUES OF SMR DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

6.1 Introduction to Chapter 6…………………………………………………………………..

6.2 Economic perspective………………………………………………………………………..

6.3 Investment perspective………………………………………………………………………

6.4 Infrastructure perspective…………………………………………………………………..

6.5 Market perspective………………………………………………………………………….

6.6 Conclusion to Chapter 6…………………………………………………………………….

References to Chapter 6…………………………………………………………………….

7. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLNGES FOR SMR DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES……………………………………………………………..

7.1 Opportunities for SMRs…………………………………………………………………….

7.2 Challenges for SMRs………………………………………………………………………..

References to Chapter 7

8. CONCLUSION

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Nuclear power started from small nuclear reactors. The drivers for the subsequent unit capacity increase were high energy demand in countries that have deployed nuclear power reactors and considerations of the economy of scale which attribute the reduction of the specific, per kW(e) capital costs of a nuclear power plant (NPP) to its higher electric output [1.1].

Smaller reactors of the first and following generations had actually been deployed. Many of them continue their operation today, and some new ones are also being built [1.2].

Nearly all of the currently operating smaller reactors represent the designs of previous generations developed and deployed decades ago. Among the newly constructed smaller reactors, the majority are the designs elaborated indigenously by countries with developing or transitional economies [1.2].

In addition to evolutionarily smaller reactors that found their way toward deployment and operation, since early 1960-s there emerged a trend toward developing “purposefully” small reactors for a variety of applications . The proponents of this alternative trend pursued innovation in reactor design and, in addition to electricity generation, considered a variety of non-electrical applications. Within this trend, a variety of non-water cooled reactor design concepts have emerged. Advanced reactors purposefully designed to be of smaller capacity contributed to many innovations that later paved their way to commercial projects of NPPs with reactors of large capacity, currently referred to as Generation III+ reactors [1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7].

Notwithstanding their long history, the “purposefully” small advanced reactors still lack the success stories regarding commercial deployment in either developed or developing countries[1.8].

More successful were evolutionary heavy water reactors which originally matched the capacity limits of their time and small heavy water and pressurized water reactors indigenously developed by developing countries in an attempt to reproduce and further nuclear power technologies originally transferred from developed countries. Several of such designs continued and continue to be deployed in times when typical maximum capacity of a NPP has become much higher compared to their output [1.2]. However, over the past decades, when these designs have already been available, there were few if any deployments of such reactors in developing countries [1.1].

The newest development for small reactors is related to the so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) sometimes also referred to as “deliberately small” reactors [1.7, 1.9]. Such reactors are being developed in Argentina, China, the Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and the USA. Their more important common features are :

(1) Effective electric output equal to, or less than ~ 300 MW;

(2) High degree of compactness and modularization, enabling factory production of basic modules or the reactor itself and minimizing the required plant site area and scope and volume of the buildings and structures needed on the site;

(3) Preferably (although this is not the case with all SMRs), allowance for twin units or flexible multi-module plant configurations.

Different from previous developments of purposefully smaller reactors, the developers of SMRs in several countries are very pragmatic in pursuing fastest possible development and deployment of their

designs. They seek and find encouragement and support from national governments and regulatory authorities in their respective countries. They are successful in establishing partnerships with private investors, industry and the research community. Several of SMR designs have reached advanced design stages or are in the licensing process, one design has been licensed and one is at the final stages of construction [1.1]. As seen at the moment, the SMRs may have a chance to boost global expansion of nuclear power by offering carbon-free, affordable, safe and reliable energy sources to many developed and developing countries.

The objective of this paper is to explore the potential for SMR deployment in developing countries by identifying the opportunities and challenges for such deployment.

The paper starts with examining the energy demand and nuclear power prospects in developing countries followed by background and history of smaller reactor development worldwide, including their evolution, success stories and previous and ongoing projects for smaller reactor deployment in developing countries (Chapter 2).

Chapter 3 presents the design status and deployment prospects for SMRs, including pressurized water reactors, gas cooled reactors, sodium cooled fast reactors and lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors.

Based on the available references, Chapter 4 brings together the considerations of technology holders regarding SMRs.

Chapter 5 reflects upon the known considerations of potential SMR users in developing countries and addresses the issues of proven design and technology; reactor type and plant capacity; plant design, construction, operation and maintenance; decommissioning; economics and financing; nuclear safety and licensing; support from the vendor; local participation and technology transfer; proliferation resistance and physical protection, as well as some very recent developments regarding common user considerations for small and medium sized reactors.

Chapter 6 explores the potential for SMR global deployment from different perspectives, including those of economics, investment, national infrastructure for nuclear power and markets.

Each of Chapters 2-6 ends with a conclusion summarizing its major findings.

Based on major finding and conclusions of Chapters 2-6, Chapter 7 provides a summary of opportunities and challenges for SMR deployment in developing countries, and also highlights pathways for the resolution of the identified challenges and issues.

Finally, Chapter 8 provides a concise summary of the principal findings of this paper.

With a variety of the SMR design concepts being examined or developed worldwide [1.6, 1.7, 1.8], taking into account large uncertainty in their design development stages and deployment timeframes, this paper is focused only on those SMR projects that show a potential to be deployed, as first-of-a-kind plants, by or around 2020, so that they could be offered to developing countries sometime between 2020 and 2025.

References to Chapter 1

[1.1] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[1.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS): http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

[1.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Development Status of Small and Medium Reactor Systems, IAEA-TECDOC-881, Vienna (1996): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_881_web.pdf

[1.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1391, Vienna (2004): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1391_web.pdf

[1.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactors: Design Features, Safety Approaches and R&D Trends, Final Report of a Technical Meeting Held in Vienna, 7-11 June 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1451, Vienna (2005): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1451_web.pdf

[1.6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[1.7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007):

http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[1.8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS): http://aris.iaea.org

[1.9] Ingersoll, DT. 2009. “Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era,” Progress in Nuclear Energy”, doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2009.01.003.

2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

(Rev0, 14 May 2012)

2.2. Historical developments for small and medium sized reactors

2.2.1. Evolution of smaller reactor design concepts

Nuclear power started from small nuclear reactors. Historically, nuclear reactors for submarines came first and those were (and are) the reactors with thermal capacity of less than 200 MW [2.1]. First generations of nuclear reactors for civil nuclear power were also small, but then the overall general trend was toward capacity increase which resulted in the emergence of designs of 1000-1600 MW(e) capacity, most currently deployed today [2.1, 2.2]. The drivers for unit capacity increase were high energy demand in countries that have deployed such reactors and considerations of the economy of scale (see Section 6.1) which attribute the reduction of the specific (per unit of energy produced) capital costs of a nuclear power plant (NPP) to its higher electric output.

Notwithstanding the above mentioned trend, smaller reactors of the first and following generations had actually been built and put into operation. Some of them continue their operation today, and some new ones are also being built, see Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Summary of operating and constructed nuclear reactors having a capacity of less than 700 MW(e), February 2012 [2.3]

Nuclear reactors with capacity less than 700 MW(e)

Number

In operation 131 (total number of operating reactors of any capacity is 436)

Under construction 14 in 6 countries (total number of reactors of any capacity under construction is 62)

Number of countries with such reactors 26

Generating capacity, GW(e) 58.9 (total generating capacity of all operating reactors is 370.5 GW(e))

Table 2.1 indicates the presence of smaller reactors in the present-day global nuclear energy system is noticeable (30% of all operating reactors and 16% of the total generating capacity). Regarding all reactors that are currently in the construction phase, the fraction of smaller reactors (less than 700 MW(e)) constitutes 22.5%, which is also a meaningful figure.

Nearly all of the operating smaller reactors represent the designs of previous generations developed and deployed decades ago. Among the newly constructed smaller reactors, the majority are the designs elaborated indigenously by countries with developing or transitional economies, e.g., the Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors [2.4], the Indian and Chinese prototype fast breeder reactors [2.3, 2.5] and the Chinese smaller power Pressurized Water Reactors [2.1]. Such designs represent national efforts to master the technology of nuclear reactors previously developed in industrialized countries. The exception here is Canadian CANDU-6 heavy water reactor of 675-530 MW(e) which continues to be deployed at a small pace in countries other than the country of origin. The characteristics of these and other deployable smaller reactors are presented and analyzed in references [2.1, 2.5].

In addition to evolutionarily smaller reactors that found their way toward deployment and operation, since early 1960-s there emerged a trend toward developing “purposefully” small reactors for a variety of applications [2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16]. The proponents of this alternative trend pursued innovation in reactor design and, in addition to electricity generation, considered a variety of non-electrical applications, protruding from seawater desalination [2.17] and district heating to process steam applications and hydrogen production by thermochemical processes [2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.18]. Within this trend, a variety of non-water cooled reactor designs have emerged, including heavy liquid metal cooled and molten salt reactors [2.13, 2.14].

The proponents of “purposefully” small reactors have elaborated definitions of such reactors based on the upper capacity limit which was first defined as a fraction of the maximum available reactor capacity but later changed to a fixed value [2.12]. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) currently adopts a classification, according to which “ ‘small reactor’ is a reactor with the equivalent electric power less than 300 MW, ‘medium sized reactor’ is a reactor with the equivalent electric power between 300 and 700 MW” [2.2].

Advanced reactors purposefully designed to be of smaller capacity contributed to many innovations that later paved their way to commercial projects of NPPs with reactors of large capacity, currently referred to as Generation III reactors.

The Three Mile Island accident in the USA triggered interest in developing new reactor designs with more strong reliance on inherent and passive safety features and broad incorporation of passive safety systems. For pressurized water reactors (PWR) the ideas to have all decay heat removal systems passive, to enhance natural circulation capabilities of the primary coolant, and to incorporate passively actuated control rod insertion were first realized in the project of the AP600 reactor of 600 MW(e) that was certified by the US NRC in 1999 [2.19] but never built because of the absence of orders. However, the same or very similar safety design features have been realized in the project of a reactor of larger capacity – the AP1000 of 1154 MW(e) – which has been certified in the USA in 2011 and is presently under construction in China and in the USA [2.3].

As another example, for boiling water reactors (BWR), the ides to have all heat removal systems (including those of normal operation and dedicated safety systems) passive, i.e., based on natural

circulation of the coolant, was first realized in the project of SBWR reactor of 600 MW(e) [2.12]. The design was never completed; however, the same of very similar design ideas were later realized in the project of BWR of a much larger capacity – the ESBWR of 1154 MW(e) – for which the final safety evaluation report and final design approval were issued by the US NRC on 9 March 2011 [2.20].

The Three Mile Island accident in the USA and, later, the Chernobyl accident in former USSR have triggered development of innovative design solutions aimed at the increased role of inherent safety features. An important development coming from the 1980-s (before that it might have been considered for, or implemented in, some submarine nuclear reactors) is integral design of a PWR wherein steam generators (and, optionally, canned pumps or/and control rod drives) are located inside the reactor vessel while the steam dome inside the reactor vessel acts as a pressurizer, see Fig. 2.1. Compared to conventional PWRs, such a design minimizes piping and associated reactor vessel penetrations, contributing to a reduced nomenclature and scope of the loss of coolant accidents (LOCA). In particular, large-break LOCA are eliminated by such design [2.21].

Fig. 2.1. Integral primary circuit design of a PWR (Safe Inherent Reactor – SIR [2.22])

A PWR with integral design of the primary circuit has never been built, at least, as comes to civil applications of nuclear power. However, as it will be shown in Chapter 3, nearly all small reactors of PWR type that are being developed today employ such a design; several of them have very good chances of being deployed by and around 2020 (see Chapter 3).

Since early 1990-s development of small nuclear reactors in Russia was boosted by partial declassification of the experience of marine propulsion reactors. In this way, compact modular designs for barge mounted and land based power plants have emerged [2.13, 2.14], see Chapter 3. Russian experience was not limited to water cooled reactors, but also included the reactors cooled by lead-bismuth eutectics

[2.14, 2.23]. Some of the more recent small reactor developments in the USA also refer to the experience of the marine-propulsion reactors [2.24].

In particular, the experience of marine propulsion reactors included long operation without refuelling or shuffling of fuel in the reactor core (up to 7-8 years according to reference [2.14]). Such experience brought about the idea of civil reactors that are either fuelled and defueled at a dedicated factory or undergo a whole-core on site refuelling carried out by a dedicated vendor’s team who bring with them the new core load and the refuelling equipment and take away this equipment and the spent core load after the refuelling is completed. Such mode of operation, when the reactor vessel lead could remain closed or even weld sealed during the whole period of operation between infrequent refuellings was deemed to provide additional proliferation resistance assurances to the international community [2.2, 2.14, 2.23, 2.25].

In 2005, reflecting on these developments, IAEA has introduced the following definition [2.2]:

In application to small reactors without on-site refuelling, “refuelling” could be defined as “the removal and/or replacement of either fresh or spent, single or multiple, bare or inadequately confined nuclear fuel cluster(s) or fuel element(s) contained in the core of a nuclear reactor”. “With this, the infrequent replacement of well-contained fuel cassette(s) in a manner that prohibits clandestine diversion of nuclear fuel material could be exempted.”

1990-s and early 2000-s have seen the developments of multiple small fast reactor design concepts in the USA and Japan [2.14]. Those developments were, to a significant extent, based on the experience of design and operation of the EBR-II reactor at the former West Campus Argonne National Laboratory1 [2.26]. EBR-II was a sodium cooled experimental fast breeder reactor of 62.5 MW thermal power which operated from 1964 till 1996. It was a pool type reactor with many inherent and passive safety features which were demonstrated during its operation.

The design concepts of small fast reactors (the ENHS and STAR family of small reactors developed in the USA; the 4S, LSPR and small and medium sized lead-bismuth cooled reactors developed in Japan [2.14]) used the concept of a pool type reactor with sodium heat exchanger or steam generator 2 located inside the reactor pool. The operation time between refuellings was very long (10-20 years and more), the reactivity feedbacks including void worth were negative and whole core on-site refueling by a dedicated vendor team was assumed. The considered coolants were sodium or lead bismuth, or pure lead (STAR family of reactors). When operated in a closed nuclear fuel cycle, such reactors retained their fissile inventory, i.e., were self-sufficient on fuel materials. On the other hand, fuel breeding or undeclared production of fissile materials was said to be excluded by design.

Some of the above mentioned designs provided for hydrogen production by high-temperature electrolysis [2.14]. For more innovative designs, a nuclear system architecture was proposed as shown in Fig. 2.2. The reactors were supposed to operate with regional fuel cycle centres incorporating closed nuclear fuel cycle. Main energy carrier was assumed to be hydrogen rather than electricity. Owners of the power plants and plants converting hydrogen to electricity and other products were assumed to be independent energy providers operating in future deregulated energy markets (which is not the case for any of the electricity markets today [2.1]). The system shown in Fig. 2.2 was devised to spread the investments and associated risks among larger number of players and to be adjustable to varying market demand and volume. The dots which are fuel cycle centers, hydrogen production reactors and hydrogen fuelled energy plants are referred to as ‘hubs’, while the material and product flows between the hubs are referred to as “spikes”, making the whole system “hub-spoke”.

1 Currently - the Materials and Fuels Complex of the Idaho National Laboratory.   2 For lead and lead-bismuth cooled small reactors.

H ie ra rc h ic a l H u b -S p o k e E n e rg y A rc h ite c tu re

L e g e n d

R e g io n a l F u e l C y c le C e n te r- C re a te s N u c le a r F u e l C a s s e tte s- R e c y c le s R e tu rn e d U s e d F u e l C a s s e tte s

U rb a n B a tte ry R e a c to r- C o n v e rts N u c le a r F ue l to H , O a n d D e s a lin a te s W a te r 2 2

- T re a ts R e tu rn e d S e w a g e

D is tric t D is tr ib u te d E le c tric ity C e n te r- C o n v e rts H to E le c tr ic ity2

E n d U s e E n e rg y C o n v e rte r- C o n v e rts E le c tric ity to M o tiv e F o rc e ,

L igh t, H e a t, In fo rm a tio n S to ra g e a ndT ra n s m is s io n

N u c le a r F ue l S h ip m e n ts

U s e d F u e l R e tu rn

H y d ro g e n P ip e lin e s , W a te r P ip e lin e s

S e w a g e R e tu rn

E le c tr ic ity W ire s

Fig. 2.2. Hierarchical hub/spoke nuclear energy architecture [2.14]

Because of insufficient funding, the US and the Japanese activities on small fast reactors with lead and lead bismuth coolant were stopped by 2006-2008 [2.1]. A substantial reason for stopping could be insufficient level of technology development for such coolants and anticipated high costs of R&D necessary to develop such technologies up to a commercial level. However, one design concept of a small sodium cooled reactor, that named the 4S, was picked up by a major Japanese company, Toshiba Corporation, which continues its development today, see Chapter 3.

In 1990-s, Russia has started the development of a small fast reactor cooled by lead-bismuth eutectics, SVBR-100 [2.14]. This development has been successfully continued and is progressing well today, see Chapter 3.

In addition to what is said above, since 1950-s a number of countries have been developing designs of high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR) with coated-particle based fuel and helium coolant [2.13, 2.18]. Development of such reactors was linked to high temperature process heat applications and, specifically, hydrogen production.

In the past, HTGRs were never promoted as small and medium sized reactors. However, safety designs of all HTGRs require passive decay heat removal to the outside of the reactor vessel even in the absence of the helium coolant [2.13]. With presently known materials for the reactor vessel this requirement imposes a limit on maximum thermal capacity of HTGR which is ~600 MW(th). In this way, all HTGRs are brought to a small and medium sized reactor category.

A typical design of HTGR based on a direct gas-turbine Brayton cycle with high energy conversion efficiency of up to 50% and helium temperature at the core outlet 750-850 oC is shown in Fig. 2.3. Advanced thermochemical processes, such as sulphur-iodine process, are being developed for hydrogen production using high temperatures heat produced by such HTGRs [2.27].

Fig.2.3. PBMR design scheme [2.16].

Development of direct cycle HTGRs is being continued today in USA, France, Russia, Republic of Korea and Japan; however, their deployment time frames are now shifted to 2025 and beyond [2.13]. The reasons for such shifting could be technical complexities related to the design of higher capacity Brayton cycle turbines and advanced thermochemical processes for hydrogen production and the anticipated high R&D costs. Even more important, the demand for hydrogen (which the proponents of HTGRs view as an alternative to the present day gasoline and diesel fuel) remains moderate and well satisfied by currently available non-nuclear production capacities [2.27].

At the same time, in China they have developed the detailed design of an indirect cycle HTGR using conventional super-heated steam in the secondary circuit [2.13, 2.16]. This design of 105 MW(e), named HTR-PM, is intended for electricity generation within a two or three module plant configuration. It is licensed and ready to be deployed in China in the nearest future, see Chapter 3.

Notwithstanding a long history, the “purposefully” small advanced reactors briefly highlighted above still lack the success stories regarding commercial deployment. The reasons behind this may include a stagnation period after the Chernobyl accident (1990-s), when funds allotted to nuclear power programmes were limited and general attitude toward NPP deployment was cautious, as well as periods of intensive NPP build (1970-s in the USA and 1980s in France) and nuclear “renaissance” (after 2004) when all resources were mobilized for the construction of state-of-the art plants of larger capacity. The energy demand in industrialized countries could be relatively high, which puts a priority on larger capacity reactors. Last but not least, design and technology development for any advanced reactor requires steady provision of resources during a considerable time, and moving the nuclear industry to operate according to “business as usual” market rules (the trend observed in many countries starting from late 1980-s does) generally narrows the options for advanced technology development.

More successful were evolutionary smaller reactors which matched the capacity limits of their time or were indigenously developed by developing countries in an attempt to reproduce and further the established technologies transferred from industrialized countries. The success stories for the latter category of smaller reactors are highlighted in Section 2.2.2 below.

The newest development for small reactors is related to the so-called small modular reactors sometimes also referred to as “deliberately small” reactors [2.28]. The terms came from the USA where in the second half of 2000-s a number of design concepts of such reactors have emerged with a strong encouragement from the US Department of Energy [2.29].

Small modular reactors have the following general characteristics [2.1], see Fig. 2.4:

(1) Electric output less than ~250 MW;

(2) Compactness and modularity of the design, allowing for factory fabrication and transportation of the reactor module or the complete nuclear steam supply system by truck, rail or barge;

(3) Longer refueling intervals, in some cases with whole core refueling on the site or at a centralized factory (as an option for more distant future);

(4) Simplified decommissioning technologies which are essentially limited to disconnection and removal of the modules;

(5) Relatively small absolute capital costs and an option of incremental capacity addition provided by flexible plant configuration wherein each reactor module or a group of 2-3 reactor modules have their own turbine generator (the per module capital cost for a module of 100 MW(e) is typically within the envelope of 1 US$ billion);

(6) Flexible co-generation options with base load electricity generation being the priority for the nearest term;

(7) Very high safety level owing to strong reliance on the inherent and passive safety features.

Steam Turbine

Generator

Condenser

Containment

Water-Filled Pool Below

Ground

J. Nylander and M. Cohen

NSSS

Fig. 2.4 NuScale, an example of small modular reactor design developed in the USA [2.30]

The newly emerged US designs belonging to this category include water cooled reactors but also gas cooled and lead bismuth cooled fast reactors [2.1].

Reference [2.1] mentions that “new small and modular (‘mini’) reactor concepts being developed in the USA are technologically not unique”, they fit into established technology lines and “share many of their design attributes with other small reactor design concepts being developed in countries other than the USA”, such as Argentina, Republic of Korea and Russia.

Different from previous developments of purposefully small reactors, the proponents of small modular reactors (hereafter referred to as SMRs, see the definition in Chapter 1) in several countries aggressively pursue fastest deployment by seeking and finding encouragement and support from national governments and regulatory authorities and by establishing partnerships with the industry and the research community represented by national laboratories and universities. For this reason, and taking into account that some SMRs are already at advanced design stages or in the licensing/construction process, the focus of this paper will be namely on the reactors of this group. The design status and deployment prospects for such reactors are analyzed in more detail in Chapter 3 and throughout the rest of the report.

2.2.2. Success stories for smaller nuclear reactors

As evidenced by Table 2.1, SMRs retain a noticeable share in global nuclear electricity generation. This share has been gradually acquired through deployments of evolutionary smaller reactors which matched the nuclear capacity limits at the time of their deployment, many such reactors continue to be operated nowadays [2.3]. On the other hand, there are several evolutionary reactor designs of small and medium capacity that continued and continue to be deployed in times when typical maximum capacity of a NPP has become much higher compared to their output. These designs are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.

Table 2.2. General characteristics of evolutionary small and medium sized reactorsReactor name Company/Country Electric output (gross),

MWPlant configuration

CANDU-6 [2.31 ] AECL, Canada 675 - 730 Single-module (Twin-unit option available for the updated design, named EC6)

PHWR-220, 540, 700 [2.4 ] NPCIL, India 220, 540, 700 Single-module plant

QP300 [2.1] CNNC, China 310-325 Single-module plant

CNP-600 [ 2.1] CNNC, China 644 Single-module plant

Table 2.3. General characteristics (continued) and deployment status of evolutionary small and medium sized reactorsReactor name Construction

period/Refuelling interval, months

Deployment status Deployment prospects

CANDU-6 60/On line refuelling 10 units deployed and operated in China, Canada, Republic of Korea and Romania

Two new units planned in Romania

PHWR-220, 540, 700 60/ On line refuelling 16 units in operation and two 700 MW(e) units under construction in India

Several new 700 MW(e) units scheduled for construction;

220 MW(e) designs are being offered for export.

QP300 84/14 One unit in operation in China, two units in operation and one unit under construction in Pakistan

One more unit planned in Pakistan

CNP-600 83/18 Four units in operation and two units under construction in China

The design is being offered to export

Canadian CANDU-6 of 675-730 MW(e), which is a horizontal pressure-tube heavy water reactor, has been deployed nationally and internationally since 1982 and until 2007, see Table 2.4. Negotiations are in progress to deploy a few more units in Romania and Argentina. The reactor has an excellent operation and safety record; however, its deployment requires heavy water purchase arrangements or development of heavy water production capability3. The EC6 design, see Fig. 2.5, which is the updated version of the CANDU-6, has been developed by AECL but was not deployed so far.

Fig. 2.5. Layout of the EC6 plant [2.32]

3 Heavy water is rated as proliferation sensitive material because of an option to use it for weapon-grade plutonium production in research reactors.

Table 2.4. CANDU-6 reactors in operation worldwide [2.3]

# NPP, Country Electric output (net), MW Start of commercial operation

1 Gentilly-2, Canada 635 19822 Point Lepreau, Canada 635 19823 Wolsong-1, Republic of Korea 660 19824 Cernavoda-1, Romania 650 19965 Wolsong-2, Republic of Korea 410 19976 Wolsong-3, Republic of Korea 707 19987 Wolsong-4, Republic of

Korea708 1999

8 Qinshan (Unit 3-1), China 650 20029 Qinshan (Unit 3-2), China 650 200310

Cernavoda-2, Romania 650 2007

India has pursued small and medium sized reactor option since 1960-s and the initial selections were made based on the then small size of the electricity grid. In particular, India has purchased two small capacity CANDU reactors from the AECL of Canada, and the first of these two units was put into operation in 1973. However, after 1974 cooperation with AECL was discontinued and India completed the construction of the second unit indigenously. On that way the country mastered the production of the components for small CANDU type reactors. The second unit was put into operation in 1981 and since that time India continues indigenous design development and deployment of small and medium sized pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR) progressively of 220 MW(e), 540 MW(e) and, more recently, 700 MW(e) capacity [2.33], see Table 2.5.

Recently, a decision was made to discontinue domestic construction of the indigenous 220 MW(e) PHWR. However, India is ready to offer them for export. Plans exist to build more indigenously designed PHWRs of 700 MW(e) class domestically.

PHWRs designed and deployed in India have an operation experience of 295 reactor-years. Over this period, only 3 minor incidents have occurred, and none of these incidents has produced radiological consequences. The reactors operate with a load factor exceeding 85% and the construction period is strictly confined to 60 months with some deployments having been accomplished ahead of the schedule and below the originally allotted budget [2.3, 2.33].

Table 2.5. Indigenous design PHWRs in operation or under construction in India [2.3]

# NPP Electric output (net), MW

Reactor name

Start of commercial operation

1 Kalpakkam (Unit 1) 205 PHWR-220 19842 Kalpakkam (Unit 2) 205 PHWR-220 19863 Narora (Unit 1) 202 PHWR-220 19914 Narora (Unit 2) 202 PHWR-220 19925 Kakrapar (Unit 1) 202 PHWR-220 19936 Kakrapar (Unit 2) 202 PHWR-220 19957 Kaiga (Unit 1) 202 PHWR-220 20008 Kaiga (Unit 2) 202 PHWR-220 20009 Rajasthan (Unit 3) 202 PHWR-220 200010 Rajasthan (Unit 4) 202 PHWR-220 200011 Tarapur (Unit 4) 490 PHWR-540 200512 Tarapur (Unit 3) 490 PHWR-540 200613 Kaiga (Unit 3) 202 PHWR-220 200714 Rajasthan (Unit 5) 202 PHWR-220 201015 Rajasthan (Unit 6) 202 PHWR-220 201016 Kaiga (Unit 4) 202 PHWR-220 2011

17 Rajasthan (Unit 7) 640 PHWR-700 201418 Rajasthan (Unit 8) 640 PHWR-700 2015

The reason why India continues with design development and deployment of small and medium capacity reactors in times when the capacity of a national electricity grid is able to accommodate large reactors is that these designs matched and match well the capabilities of national nuclear industry. For example, India is still not able to produce indigenously the reactor pressure vessels and other large components for pressurized water or boiling water reactors. At the same time, all components of PHWRs are produced domestically, using local labour and local materials, paid off in local currency and according to local prices. As a result, if offered for export and valued in hard currency, the Indian PHWRs of 220 MW(e) and 540 MW(e) could have capital costs as low as 1800 US$/kW(e) [2.33, 2.34].

Another reason for the continued PHWR development and deployment in India is that these reactors provide a good domain for the effective use of Thorium based and, later, Uranium-233 and Thorium based fuel, which is the priority of the Indian national nuclear energy strategy [2.13]. India has developed detailed design of the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) of 300 MW(e) providing for operation on a mixed Pu-Th or U-Th fuel with significant amounts of 233U being produced and burned in-situ, ensuring effective energy production from natural Thorium (ibidem), see Fig. 2.6.

No Indian PHWRs have ever been deployed abroad, and no information about the plans for such deployment currently exists.

Fig.2.6. Overview of the Indian AHWR [2.16]

China has huge energy demand and diverse energy needs which include large as well as small and medium sized reactors for different regions and locations within the country. Plant capacity is not a driver as comes to nuclear power development in China.

China is mastering a variety of nuclear technologies, among them the technologies of PWR reactors. In 1994, the first 300 MW(e) PWR of Chinese design was commissioned at the Quinshan site, see Table 2.6. This design was partly based on technologies transferred from the Framatome ANP (currently within the AREVA Group). Later on, the design of a 600 MW(e) PWR was developed with four units built and put into operation at the Qinshan site between 2002 and 2011. Two units of a 600 MW(e) PWR are under construction at the Chiangjiang site currently, to be put into operation in 2014 and 2015.

Although only one 300 MW(e) PWR has been built in China, two units with such reactors have been deployed at the Chasnupp site in Pakistan in 2000 and 2011, see Table 2.7. One more 300 MW(e) unit is being built in Pakistan, to be put in operation in 2016.

More recently China has developed and put in operation the PWR design of 1000 MW(e) capacity and constructs several other units with such reactors [2.3]. China is also working on a PWR design of 1400 MW(e) capacity. Construction of larger plants in China progresses along with further construction of 600 MW(e) PWR units.

It is being said about plans to build one more 300 MW(e) unit at the Chasnupp site and about considering further build of up to 18 units of the 600 MW(e) PWR units in Pakistan; however, everything is very preliminary and not officially confirmed.

The reason why smaller reactors continue to be deployed in China is that they could be built using mostly the components produced indigenously from local materials and using local labour, paid off in local currency. Like in the case of India, this makes such reactors relatively cheap. Low capital costs of a NPP are potentially attractive to developing countries; however, it is only Pakistan that has so far chosen to build Chinese small reactors.

Table 2.6. PWR type small and medium sized reactors in operation or under construction in China [2.3]

# NPP Electric output (net), MW

Reactor name Start of commercial operation

1 Qinshan (Unit I-1) 288 QP-300 19942 Qinshan (Unit II-

1)610 CNP-600 2002

3 Qinshan (Unit II-2)

610 CNP-600 2004

4 Qinshan (Unit II-3)

610 CNP-600 2010

5 Qinshan (Unit II-4)

610 CNP-600 2011

6 Chiangjiang(Unit 1)

610 CNP-600 2014

7 Chiangjiang(Unit 2)

610 CNP-600 2015

Table 2.7. PWR type small and medium sized reactors in operation or under construction in Pakistan [2.3]

# NPP Electric output (net), MW Reactor name Start of commercial operation1 Chasnupp

(Unit 1)300 QP-300 2000

2 Chasnupp(Unit 2)

300 QP-300 2011

3 Chasnupp(Unit 3)

315 QP-300 2016

Summing up the deployment experience of the evolutionary smaller reactor designs mentioned above, it could be noted that, notwithstanding the achieved operation experience, very good safety record and reasonable or low construction costs, their deployment opportunities remain limited. Specifically, over the past decades, when the designs have already been available, there were few if any deployments of such reactors in developing countries (Romania in 1982 and Pakistan in 2000 are the exceptions). Moreover, today there is no evidence that developing countries seriously considering the introduction of nuclear power have are interested to deploy these Generation II nuclear reactors [2.35].

Different from evolutionary smaller reactors developed previously, the newly developed small modular reactors of Generations III+ and IV may have a chance to boost global expansion of nuclear power by offering affordable, safe and carbon-free energy sources to many developing countries. Their potential to achieve this goal is examined in Chapter 6.

2.2.3. Previous and on-going projects on introduction of smaller reactors to developing countries

The idea that small or medium sized reactors could be a better nuclear option for developing countries with small electricity grids and limited infrastructure is not new, it had been on the Agenda for at least three previous decades [2.1, 2.2, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.36, 2.37].

Some developing countries who established nuclear energy commissions or authorities long ago have undertaken attempts to invite bids for small and medium sized reactors or to complete feasibility studies for deployment of such reactors in particular locations [2.11, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42].

For example, in Egypt the Atomic Energy Commission was established way back in 1955 [2.38]. In 1964, the country issued bid invitation for the construction of a NPP for 150 MW(e) electricity generation and 2000 m3/day desalinated water production at Borg El-Arab. The project was stopped due to war with Israel in 1967.

In 1974, Egypt issued a limited bid invitation (to the US companies only) for the construction of a 600 MW(e) NPP at Sidi Kadur. The project was stopped due to Three Mile Island accident in the USA in 1979.

In 1980, the El-Dabaa site was selected for an NPP, and 1983 saw a bid invitation for the construction of a NPP at this site. The project was stopped due to Chernobyl accident in 1986.

In 2007, Egypt started cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for introducing a NPP though development and qualification of national infrastructure for nuclear power, following the provisions of the IAEA documents [2.43, 2.44].

On 17 January 2011 it was announced that that the Government of Egypt plans to issue a tender for the construction of the first four nuclear power plants of 1000 MW(e) capacity at the El-Dabaa site. However, the coup d’etat in February 2011 and the following developments in the country have put these plans on a hold. Accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi NPP in Japan followed in March 2011; however, no changes in plans to build NPPs have been announced in this respect in Egypt.

Egypt is planning for about 5000 MW(e) capacity of NPPs by 2027 [2.38]. The currently available electricity grids allow for the deployment of NPPs with unit capacity of up to 1600 MW(e). However, smaller reactors could also be considered by the country for the following main reasons:

Grid stability factor; such reactors could contribute to enhanced stability of the national nuclear power system which is currently based on small and medium non-nuclear generating units, the largest of them having a capacity of 650 MW(e);

Greater simplicity of design and operation for small reactors that potentially make them a good choice for the start-up of nuclear power programme in a developing country;

Better options for local participation potentially offered by smaller nuclear reactors.

The example of Egypt, inter alia, demonstrates how important for the success of a nuclear power programme are political stability in a country and good relations with neighbouring countries in the region. The problems already faced by Egypt could be faced in the near future by many developing countries in Africa.

The National Atomic Energy Commission of Indonesia (BATAN) was established in 1964 [2.41]. In 1972, a commission for preparation of NPP construction was established, and the first feasibility study was initiated in 1976. The first governmental decision of the development of an NPP was adopted in 1990.

Nuclear Energy Act (national Law on Nuclear Energy) was adopted in 1997; however, 1998 saw the emergence of regional economic crisis followed by political crisis in Indonesia. The latter has slowed the developments in national nuclear energy sector.

In 2000-2002 a new feasibility study was conducted which, different from the previous one, has shown the feasibility of construction of NNPs with large reactors (1000 MW(e)) in the Jawa-Bali region of the country.

In 2006, following the energy planning study, a National energy policy for 2005-2025 was adopted which defined the share of nuclear power in 2025 at 2%, see Fig. 2.7. These 2% may include both, large reactors in the Jawa-Bali region and small and medium sized reactors on the islands (such as Madura, Kalimantan and Bangka-Belitung).

The national Electricity plan indicates the total electricity generation in the country should increase from 30.32 GW(e) in 2009 up to 55 GW(e) in 2019. In 2007, Indonesia has adopted an Act on National long-term development planning which provided for the first NPP of 1000 MW(e) capacity in 2015-2019.

Fig. 2.7. National energy policy in Indonesia [2.42]

From 2006 Indonesia is cooperating with IAEA for introducing a NPP though development and qualification of national infrastructure for nuclear power, following the provisions of the IAEA document [2.43, 2.44].

In 2010, a Presidential instruction was issued which prescribes to accelerate national development including the introduction of nuclear power. In addition to this, a Government regulation on national medium term development has been issued that provided for performance of a pre-feasibility study on NPP introduction. Such study has been started and it addresses both, large reactors for the Jawa-Bali region and small reactors for the Bangka Belitung Island.

Looking at the history of nuclear power in Indonesia, one could note the continuous effort of the national nuclear community as juxtaposed to the cautious attitude of the country’s President. When the Fukushima-Daiichi accident happened in March 2011, the immediate reaction of the president was the country would reconsider its plans regarding nuclear power and put more emphasis on the development of renewable energy sources. However, no changes in the officially adopted national plans regarding nuclear power followed.

Starting from 1990-s Indonesia has been conducting multiple case studies on SMR applications for electricity generation and potable water production on the islands, such as Madura, Kalimantan and, more recently, Bangka Belitung [SMR Case Studies: Madura, Kalimantan, Bangka Belitung]. Based on the IAEA recommendations [2.36, 2.37, 2.45] the country has developed national user requirements and

assessment criteria for small and medium sized reactors [2.36, 2.41]. These requirements and criteria provide a basis for the ongoing and planned application studies for small and medium sized reactors. Specifically, the ongoing feasibility study on small reactor application at the Bangka-Belitung Island examines the deployment options for some of the small modular reactors presented in Chapter 3.

The experience of Indonesia points to the importance of developing a strong national position regarding nuclear power, including long-term commitment for its peaceful use. Without such a consensus-based position, political processes in the country, e.g., changes of the ruling parties and presidents, are on many occasions likely to slow down or even interrupt the preparations for deployment of a first NPP.

Neither Egypt, nor Indonesia have so far succeeded in building a first NPP, be it small or large, although both countries have emplaced the research reactors [2.38, 2.41].

Analyzing current developments in the field, some commonalities in the approach of those developing countries who embark upon, or are serious about, a nuclear power programme could be noted 4. The first NPP choice appears to be a state-of-the-art ~1000 MW(e) plant that has a good operation record in some industrialized country. However, the innovative small reactors are looked upon with interest in view of anticipated simplicity of their design and operation and better opportunities for local industry involvement potentially provided by projects based on such reactors. It is recognized that innovative small reactors still need time to be deployed and acquire an operation practice in a technology holder country [2.37]. So, the first choice in most of the cases appears to be a proven in operation large reactor.

Over the years, international organizations have developed a framework to support developing countries in embarking upon a nuclear power programme both, generally and specifically, in terms of small and medium sized reactors. For example, IAEA has developed a “Guidance for preparing user requirements documents for small and medium reactors and their application” [2.36] and “Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems” [2.37].

IAEA has also developed a framework and established a process for supporting the “newcomer” countries in building a national infrastructure for nuclear power [2.43, 2.44].

IAEA documents [2.37 and 2.43] will be used in Chapter 6 to evaluate the deployment potential of small modular reactors.

2.2.4. Conclusions to Section 2.2

Nuclear power started from small nuclear reactors. The drivers for unit capacity increase were high energy demand in countries that have deployed such reactors and considerations of the economy of scale which attribute the reduction of the specific capital costs of a nuclear power plant (NPP) to its higher electric output.

Notwithstanding the above mentioned general trend, smaller reactors of the first and following generations had actually been built and put into operation. Some of them continue their operation today, and some new ones are also being built.

Nearly all of the operating smaller reactors represent the designs of previous generations developed and deployed decades ago. Among the newly constructed smaller reactors, the majority are the designs elaborated indigenously by countries with developing or transitional economies.

In addition to evolutionarily smaller reactors that found their way toward deployment and operation, since early 1960-s there emerged a trend toward developing “purposefully” small reactors for a variety of applications . The proponents of this alternative trend pursued innovation in reactor design and, in addition to electricity generation, considered a variety of non-electrical applications. Within this trend, a variety of non-water cooled reactor designs have emerged.

Advanced reactors purposefully designed to be of smaller capacity contributed to many innovations that later paved their way to commercial projects of NPPs with reactors of large capacity, currently referred to as Generation III reactors.

Notwithstanding a long history, the “purposefully” small advanced reactors briefly still lack the success stories regarding commercial deployment. The reasons behind this may include a stagnation period after

4 Including Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Belarus, etc.

the Chernobyl accident (1990-s), when funds allotted to nuclear power programmes were limited and general attitude toward NPP deployment was cautious, as well as periods of intensive NPP build (1970-s in the USA and 1980s in France) and nuclear “renaissance” (after 2004) when all resources were mobilized for the construction of state-of-the art plants of larger capacity.

The newest development for small reactors is related to the so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) sometimes also referred to as “deliberately small” reactors.

Different from previous developments of purposefully small reactors, the proponents of SMRs in several countries aggressively pursue fastest deployment by seeking and finding encouragement and support from national governments and regulatory authorities and by establishing partnerships with the industry and the research community represented by national laboratories and universities.

More successful were evolutionary smaller reactors which matched the capacity limits of their time or were indigenously developed by developing countries in an attempt to reproduce and further the established technologies transferred from industrialized countries. Several of such designs continued and continue to be deployed in times when typical maximum capacity of a NPP has become much higher compared to their output. Regarding such reactors it could be noted that, notwithstanding the achieved operation experience, very good safety record and reasonable or low construction costs, their deployment opportunities remain limited. Specifically, over the past decades, when the designs have already been available, there were few if any deployments of such reactors in developing countries (Romania in 1982 and Pakistan in 2000 are the exceptions).

Different from evolutionary smaller reactors developed previously, the newly developed small modular reactors of Generations III+ and IV may have a chance to boost global expansion of nuclear power by offering affordable, safe and carbon-free energy sources to many developing countries. There potential to achieve this goal would be examined in more detail in Chapter 6.

The idea that small or medium sized reactors could be a better nuclear option for developing countries with small electricity grids and limited infrastructure has been on the Agenda for at least three previous decades.

Some developing countries who established nuclear energy commissions or authorities long ago (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia) have undertaken attempts to invite bids for small and medium sized reactors or to complete feasibility studies for deployment of such reactors in particular locations. However, neither of them has so far succeeded in building a first NPP, be it small or large.

The example of Egypt demonstrates how important for the success of a nuclear power programme are political stability in a country and good relations with neighbouring countries in the region. The experience of Indonesia points to the importance of developing a strong national position regarding nuclear power. Without such a consensus-based position, political changes in the country are on many occasions likely to slow down or even interrupt the preparations for deployment of a first NPP.

Analyzing current developments, some commonalities in the approach of those developing countries who embark upon, or are serious about, a nuclear power programme could be noted. The first NPP choice appears to be a state-of-the-art ~1000 MW(e) plant that has a good operation record in some industrialized country. However, the innovative small reactors are looked upon with interest in view of anticipated simplicity of their design and operation and better opportunities for local industry involvement potentially provided by projects based on such reactors. In this, it is recognized that innovative small reactors still need time to be deployed and acquire an operation practice in a technology holder country

Over the years, international organizations have developed a framework to support developing countries in embarking upon a nuclear power programme both, generally and specifically, in terms of small and medium sized reactors. The IAEA documents “Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems” [2.37] and “Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power” [2.43] will be used in Chapter 6 to evaluate the deployment potential of small modular reactors.

References to Section 2.2

[2.1] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[2.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactors: Design Features, Safety Approaches and R&D Trends, Final Report of a Technical Meeting Held in Vienna, 7-11 June 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1451, Vienna (2005): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1451_web.pdf

[2.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS): http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

[2.4] U.C. Muktibodh, “Design, Safety & Operability Performances of 220 MW(e), 540 MW(e) & 700 MW(e) PHWRs in India”, In: Materials of the Interregional Workshop on Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology for Near Term Deployment, IAEA, Vienna, 4-8 July 2011: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Jul-4-8-ANRT-WS/2_INDIA_PHWR_NPCIL_Muktibodh.pdf

[2.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Fast Reactor Database 2006 Update, IAEA-TECDOC-1531, Vienna (2007): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1531_web.pdf

[2.6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors – 1960, Proceeding Series - International Atomic Energy Agency 10, Vienna (1961)

[2.7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium-size Power Reactors (Vienna, 24-28 June 1968), Panel Proceeding Series - International Atomic Energy Agency 36, Vienna (1969)

[2.8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors 1970, Proceeding Series - International Atomic Energy Agency 142, Vienna (1971)

[2.9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors: Project Initiation Study Phase I, Report Prepared by IAEA and OECD NEA, IAEA-TECDOC-347, Vienna (1985): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_347_web.pdf

[2.10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors 1987, IAEA-TECDOC-445, Vienna (1987): http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/700/Small-and-Medium-Power-Reactors-1987

[2.11] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Case Study on Feasibility of Small and Medium Nuclear Power Plants in Egypt, IAEA-TECDOC-739, Vienna (1994): http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/1001/Case-Study-on-the-Feasibility-of-Small-and-Medium-Nuclear-Power-Plants-in-Egypt

[2.12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Development Status of Small and Medium Reactor Systems 1995, IAEA-TECDOC-881, Vienna (1995): http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/5530/Design-and-Development-Status-of-Small-and-Medium-Reactor-Systems-1995

[2.13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[2.14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[2.15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS): http://aris.iaea.org/ARIS/reactors.cgi

[2.16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs, A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org, IAEA, Vienna (2011): http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/files/SMR-booklet.pdf

[2.17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Nuclear Desalination in IAEA Member States, IAEA-TECDOC-1524, Vienna (2007): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1524_web.pdf

[2.18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Current Status and Future Development of Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Technology, IAEA-TECDOC-1198, Vienna (2001): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1198_prn.pdf

[2.19] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1391, Vienna (2004): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1391_web.pdf

[2.20] United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ESBWR Design Certification Review: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr/dc-review.html

[2.21] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1399_web.pdf

[2.22] J.J. Taylor, K.E. Stahlkopf, J.C. DeVine, Jr., Advanced Light Water Reactor Development in the United States, In: IAEA Bulletin 3, 1989, International Atomic Energy Agency (1989), p. 13-17

[2.23] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling: Neutronic Characteristics, Emergency Planning and Development Scenarios, Final Report of an IAEA Coordinated Research Project, IAEA-TECDOC-1652, Vienna (2010): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1652_web.pdf

[2.24] Web-site of the Babcock & Wilcox Company, B&W Receives $450 Million Order for Nuclear Components, Press Release 27 January 2010: http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2010/20100127a.html

[2.25] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling: Neutronic Characteristics, Emergency Planning and Development Scenarios, Final Report of an IAEA Coordinated Research Project, IAEA-TECDOC-1652, Vienna (2010): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1652_web.pdf

[2.26] Charles E. Stevenson, “The EBR-II Fuel Cycle Story”, ISBN: 0-89448-031-6, AND (2007), 287 p.

[2.27] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Non-Electrical Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications, Proceedings of an International Conference, Oarai, Japan, 16-19 April 2007, IAEA Proceeding Series IAEA-CN-152, Vienna(2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P_1354_web.pdf

[2.28] Ingersoll, DT. 2009. “Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era,” Progress in Nuclear Energy”, doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2009.01.003.

[2.29] Dr. John Kelly, “Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Presentation to the Secretary of Energy Science Advisory Board, 20 July 2011”, US DOE Web-site: http://www.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/John_Kelly-SEAB_SMRBriefing_July20_2011_final.pdf

[2.30] NuScale Power, Overview of NuScale Technology (2008): http://www.nuscalepower.com/ot-Scalable-Nuclear-Power-Technology.php

[2.31] CANDU-6 Technical Summary, AECL, Canada: http://www.aecl.ca/Assets/Publications/C6-Technical-Summary.pdf?method=1

[2.32] Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) Technical Summary, AECL, Canada: http://www.candu.com/site/media/Parent/EC6%20Technical%20Summary_20120423.pdf

[2.33] "Approaches to Assess Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors"/ V. Kuznetsov and N. Barkatullah. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Opportunities and Challenges for

Water Cooled Reactors in the 21st Century, 27-30 October 2009, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Paper 1S01: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/topic1/1S01_V.%20Kuznetsov.pdf

[2.34] Indrani Bagchi, “India Can Now Build Cheaper Nuclear Reactors than Almost Anyone, Outgoing DAE Chief Says”, The Times of India, 1 May 2012: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-can-now-build-cheaper-nuclear-reactors-than-almost-anyone-outgoing-DAE-chief-says/articleshow/12943970.cms

[2.35] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Starting Right, Developing Countries Make Progress Toward Nuclear Power, IAEA News Centre (2012), http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2012/startingright.html

[2.36] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for Preparing User Requirements Documents for Small and Medium Reactors and their Application, IAEA-TECDOC-1167, Vienna (2000): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1167_prn.pdf

[2.37] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems: Report of Stage 1, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.1, Vienna (2009): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1380_web.pdf

[2.38] Khali A. Yasso, Mostafa Aziz, “Perspectives on SMR Deployment in Egypt: Opportunities and Challenges”, In: Materials of the INPRO Dialogue Forum Workshop on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors, IAEA, Austria – Vienna, 10 – 14 October 2011: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/24.Yasso-and-Aziz-Egypt.pdf

[2.39] Yohannes Sardjono, “SMR Application Study in Indonesia: Case Study for Kalimantan Site”, In: Materials of the IAEA Technical Meeting/Workshop “Topical Issues of Infrastructure Development: Managing the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power Plants”, IAEA, Vienna, 24-27 January 2012: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Infrastructure/meetings/2012-01-TM-WS-Vienna/Day-4/4.YOHANNES-SARDJONO.pdf

[2.40] Sudi Ariyanto, Djoko Birmano, Supraman, “Economic and Financial Assessment of Nuclear Desalination Plant in Madura Island”, In: “Non-Electrical Applications of Nuclear Power: Seawater Desalination, Hydrogen Production and Other Industrial Applications”, Proceedings of an International Conference, Oarai, Japan, 16-19 April 2007, IAEA Proceeding Series IAEA-CN-152, Vienna(2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2007/cn152/cn152p/Presentasi%20Oarai%20SUDI.pdf

[2.41] Jupiter Sitorius Pane, “An Overview of Developing National Requirements for Proliferation Resistance Assessment of Nuclear Energy System including SM in Indonesia”, In: Materials of the IAEA Technical Meeting on Option to Incorporate Intrinsic Proliferation Feature to Nuclear Power Plants with Innovative Small and Medium sized Reactors (SMRs), 15-18 August 2011, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Aug-15-18-SMR-TM/16-Aug-Tuesday/5_INDONESIA_Jupiter_PRPP-Policy.pdf

[2.42] Syahril, JMC Johari, Sunarko, “Prospects of SMRs in Indonesia’s Energy System”, In: Materials of the IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria, 3 – 6 October 2011: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/2-Tuesday/9_INDONESIA_BATAN_Sunarko_TM3-4Oct2011.pdf

[2.43] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1, Vienna (2007): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1305_web.pdf

[2.44] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, INIR: Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review Missions, Guidance on Preparing and Conducting INIR Missions (Rev. 1), IAEA Booklet, Vienna (2011): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/INIR_web.pdf

[2.45] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for the Application of an Assessment Methodology for Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems, INPRO Manual – Overview of the Methodology, Volumes 1 and 2 of the Final Report of Phase 1 of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) including a CD-ROM Comprising All Volumes, IAEA-TECDOC-1575 Rev.1, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1575_web.pdf

3. DESIGN STATUS AND DEPLOYMENT PROSPECTS FOR SMALL MODULAR REACTORS

(Rev2, 12 June 2012)

3.1. IntroductionSmall Modular Reactors (SMRs) are being developed for several reactor lines [3.1], including:

Pressurized water reactors (PWRs), Gas cooled reactors (mostly HTGRs), Sodium cooled fast reactors (SFRs) and Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors (LBFRs).

More than two dozen concepts of such reactors were developed or analyzed worldwide during the past decade [3.2, 3.3]. Of them, several design efforts have progressed to advanced design stages and licensing, and several others show good progress toward advanced design stages, licensing and commercialization, as evidenced by established partnerships with the industry and on-going interactions with the national regulators. All in all, such SMRs have a chance of being deployed, as a prototype or a pilot plan, by and around 2020. The design status and deployment opportunities for such SMRs are highlighted in the following sections, for each of the technology lines mentioned above.

In addition to steadily progressing SMRs, there are some design efforts that remain at very early design stages, for which no technical data is available, or which had been substantially slowed down and stopped following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Such concepts are briefly mentioned and referenced in this and the following sections, as appropriate.

Apart from small modular reactors (SMRs) as defined in Chapter 1, there is a number of designs and concepts of small and medium sized reactors representing conventional, well established PWR or heavy water reactor (HWR) technologies. Some of them, e.g., the Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR), the Canadian CANDU6 or EC6, and Chinese QP300 have already been deployed [3.4, 3.5, 3.6]. Design status and deployment prospects for such reactors are presented in detail in [3.7, 3.8, 3.9].

Finally, some recent publications [3.8] addressed several SMR design concepts employing boling water reactor (BWR) technology, such as the Japanese CCR and IMR5, or the Russian VK-300. For a variety of reasons, with the Fukushima Daiichi accident being not least important of them, all corresponding design development efforts in the respective countries have either been stopped or brought to a standstill. For this reason, such SMRs are not considered in the present chapter.

3.2. Pressurized water reactors

Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) with PWRs are most commonly operated plants worldwide, they account for 61% of the total reactor fleet [3.7]. PWR are also leaders among the power reactors being constructed. In 2011, out of 62 new nuclear power units under construction, 56 were with PWRs (ibidem).

Reference [3.8] provides the following short explanation of a PWR:

“PWR are two-circuit, indirect energy conversion cycle plants. The primary coolant is pressurized light water. Nuclear heat generated in the reactor core is transferred to the secondary (power) circuit through steam generators. Boiling of water in the primary circuit is typically not allowed. The power circuit uses the Rankine cycle with saturated or slightly superheated steam for energy conversion”.

5 IMR of 350 MW(e) employing natural circulation in normal operation mode could actually be rated as a PWR with boiling allowed in a primary circuit [3.8]. Some activities for it have been restarted following the Fukushima Daiichi accident but, in view of the overall difficult situation in the Japanese nuclear industry, no substantial progress for this conceptual design is expected in the nearest future.

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize general characteristics and design status of SMRs belonging to PWR technology line.

Table 3.1. General characteristics of SMRs (PWRs) SMR name Company/Country Electric/Thermal

power, MWNon-electrical products

Plant configuration

KLT-40S [3.9] JSC “Rosenergoatom”, Russia

2x38.5 (non-electrical applications disabled)/2x150

Heat for district heating: 2x25 GCal/hour, or

Potable water : 20 000 – 100 000 m3/day

Twin-unit for a barge-mounted NPP

ABV [3.8] OKBM, Russia 2x8.5/2x38 Heat for district heating: 2x12 GCal/hour, or

Potable water : 20 000 m3/day

Twin-unit for a barge-mounted NPP;

Land based plant option.

VBER-300 [3.9] JSC “Nuclear Plants”, Kazakhstan, Russia

325/917 Heat for district heating: 150 GCal/hour, or

Potable water

Single- or twin-unit land based plant;

Single-unit barge-mounted plant option.

RITM-200 [3.1] OKBM, Russia 50/175 30 MW of shart power;

248 t/hour of steam at 295oC, 3.82 MPa

Nuclear icebreaker reactor;

NPP option to be considered.

CAREM-25 [3.8] INVAP, CNEA, Argentina

27/116 Potable water: 10 000 m3/hour, as future option

Single-unit land based plant;

Concentrated deployment possible.

SMART [3.8] KEPCO, Republic of Korea

100/330 Heat for district heating: 150 GCal/hour, or

Potable water : 40 000 m3/day

Single-unit land based plant

Westinghouse SMR [3.1]

Westinghouse Electric, USA

225/800 No Single-unit or twin-unit land based plant

mPower [3.8] Babcock & Wilcox, USA

180/576 (per module) No Four-module land based plant;

Other NPP configurations possible.

NuScale [3.7] NuScale Power Inc., USA

48/160 (per module) Potable water or process steam, as options

Twelve-module land based plant.

HI-SMUR [3.17] Holtec International, USA

145/469 No Single- or multi-module plant

Table 3.2. General characteristics (continued) and design status of SMRs (PWR)SMR name Construction

period/Refuelling interval, months

Design stage Licensing stage Targeted deployment date

KLT-40S 48/27.6 Detailed design completed

Licensed, construction being finalized

2014

ABV 48/288 (factory refuelling)

Detailed design under revision for longer refuelling interval

Previous design licensed

Start-up of construction: 2014 (no decision yet)

VBER-300 48/24 Detailed design in progress

Not started 2020

RITM-200 48/84 (factory refuelling)

Detailed design completed

Detailed design approved by SAEC “Rosatom”

2015-2015 (icebreaker)

CAREM-25 60/11 Detailed design completed

Licensing near completion

Construction start-up: 2012;

Designs for 150 and 300 MW(e) to be developed later.

SMART <36/36 Detailed design near completion

Licensing in progress 2015

Westinghouse SMR <36/24 Conceptual design in progress

Pre-licensing negotiations/licensing initiation planned for 2012

2018-2022

mPower 36/48 Conceptual design in progress

Pre-licensing negotiations/licensing initiation planned for 2012

2018-2022

NuScale 36/48 Detailed design in progress

Pre-licensing negotiations/licensing initiation planned for 2012

2018-2022

HI-SMUR Very short/>36 Conceptual design in progress

Pre-licensing negotiations started in 2011

2018-2020 (target – 2014)

All SMR design concepts presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 could be sorted out into the following two groups:

Compact modular designs based on the experience of the Russian marine propulsuion reactors (such SMRs are the KLT-40S and the VBER-300);

SMRs with integral design of the primary circuit (all other SMRs in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, except the HI-SMUR which combines the designfeaturs from both groups).

Designs in the first group, backed by ~6500 years of operation experience of the Russian marine propulsion reactors, have steam generators, main curculation pumps and pressurizers all located in separate modules, like in a conventional PWRs [3.2, 3.10]. However, the piping is short and there are special features incorporated to prevent or minimize potential leaks from the primary circuit. The whole primary system including coolant purification and water chemistry systems is very compact and is located within the primary pressure boundary, so that the primary circuit design is often referred to as leak-tight [3.10], see Fig. 3.1.

6

2

3

1

9

8

4

10 5

7

Fig. 3.1. Layout of the KLT-40S reactor [3.10].

Designs in the second group are characterized by the integral primary circuit layout within which steam generators are located inside the reactor vessel, see Fig. 3.2. In most cases steam space under the top dome of the reactor vessel acts as a pressurizer, while in some cases the control rod drive mechanisms and the coolant pumps are also housed inside the reactor vessel [3.8, 3.10]. Integral arrangement of the primary circuit helps eliminate large diameter piping and minimize reactor vessel penetrations contributing to a reduced loss of coolant accident (LOCA) scope and nomenclature.

1 Reactor 6,7 Pressurizers2 Steam generator 8 Steam lines3 Main circulating pump 9 Localizing valves4 CPS drives 10 Heat exchanger of the

purification and long term cooling system

5 ECCS accumulator

Fig.3.2. Layout of the mPower design with integral primary circuit [3.1].

SMRs with integral design of the primary circuit are generally more compact compared to the designs of the first of the above mentioned groups, see Fig. 3.3. Therefore, newer Russian designs (RITM-200) are being developed as integral designs.

KLT-40S: 1870 t, 12x7.9x12 m RITM-200: 1100 t; 6x6x15.5 m

(a) (b)

Fig. 3.3. Layouts of the nuclear islands of the KLT-40S (a) and RITM-200 (b) [3.11].

Finally, the HI-SMUR combines the features of both groups offering in-vessel pressurizer but out-of-vessel horizontal steam generators, see Fig. 3.4 Horizontal location of the steam generators which are

Reactor Pressure Vessel

Downcomer

Riser

Pressurizer

Internal CRDM

Reactor core

Steam generator

connected to the upper part of the reactor vessel directly, without any pipes, is said to provide improved seismic response of the plant and also offers broader options for decay heat removal in accidents [3.17].

Fig. 3.4.. Layout of the HI-SMUR plant [3.17].

The PWR type SMRs shown in Tables 3.1-3.2 have a power rating from 8.5 to 300 MW(e). In many cases, twin units or multi-module plants are provided for. If not, there is always an option to build several units on one site, like in the case of conventional operating reactors. In this way, the overall capacity of the power station achieved with such SMRs could be as high as that of a NPP with large nuclear reactors. However, different from large reactors, the overall station capacity could be achieved in smaller increments.

Except for the Russian designs, all SMRs are being developed for land-based power plants. Westinghouse SMR, mPower, NuScale and HI-SMUR provide for underground locations of the reactor buildings [3.8]. Details of the safety design of the Russian barge-mounted NPPs are provided in reference [3.10].

Non-electrical applications, such as production of heat for district heating or seawater desalination, are included from the outset only in the Russian (KLT-40S, ABV, VBER-300) and Korean (SMART) designs. For all other SMRs in Tables 3.1, 3.2 they are considered as an option for future NPPs.

Regarding nuclear fuel, KLT-40S and ABV incorporate fuel based on uranium dioxide dispersed in the silumin matrix [3.2, 3.10]. The initial enrichment is slightly below 20%. All other SMR designs in Tables 3.1, 3.2 incorporate uranium dioxide fuel with the enrichment less than 5% by 235U.

Regarding load following operation of SMRs, reference [3.8] suggests that “the magnitude and rate of (daily) power variations and number of power level switches for SMR do not differ much from those of the state-of-the-art large reactors”. “For some co-generation plants with SMR, e.g., the NuScale [3.7], it is proposed to change the ratio of electricity and desalinated water production at a constant thermal output of the reactor, which is expected to enable load-following operation precisely matching hourly load changes during the day” (ibidem).

Of the designs presented in Tables 3.1, 3.2, an NPP with the two KLT-40S reactors is licensed and undergoes the final stages of construction [3.12]. CAREM-25 and SMART are in the licensing process.

For Westinghouse SMR, mPower and NuScale licensing negotiations with the US NRC have been started and licensing application dates have been defined.

It is important to note that pilot plants with all SMRs shown in Tables 3.1, 3.2 will be deployed in the country of origin. In most cases, the designers and vendors speak very cautiously about possible exports of such reactors which are, first of all, needed in their home countries. The application range includes the utilities with no own funds to build a large reactor, military bases, regions of countries where electricity grids are small or not present at all, areas where heat for district heating is needed as much as electricity, oil wells and mining enterprises where the lifespan of a mine is limited requiring timely relocation of the energy source to another place [3.3, 3.8].

The barge-mounted plant with two KLT-40S reactors will be deployed in the bay area near the city of Vilyuchinsk in the Russian Far East. Preparatory works on the site are in progress and the construction of the plant nears completion [3.12]. In 2013, the plant will be towed to its deployment place, and the plant operation is expected to be commenced the following year.

Atucha site already hosting the operating Atucha-1 and the constructed Atucha-2 plants has been selected for the Argentinean CAREM-25 [3.13].

mPower designers have established a partnership with the US TVA utility to build up to six mPower units at the Clinch River site in the USA and seek the US Department of Energy funds to develop and license the mPower technology [3.14].

Westinghouse Electric has recently established an alliance with the Ameren Missouri utility to seek the US Department of Energy funds to develop and license the Westinghouse SMR technology [3.15].In mid-May 2012 the Westinghouse - Ameren Missouri alliance was joined by the three major US utilities, Exelon, Dominion Virginia and First Energy, to support licensing and deployment of the Westinghouse small modular reactor. Negotiations are in progress with other utilities and industrial enterprises.

In March 2012, NuScale Power has partnered with NuHub, an economic development initiative in South Carolina (USA), to pursue the deployment of a demonstration unit of the NuScale SMR at the Savannah River site [3.16]. Similar to mPower and Westinghouse SMR, NuScale Power seeks the US Department of Energy funds to develop and license the NuScale technology.

Holtec International has established partnerships with the Shaw Group, the Savannah River Site and the NuHub group and seeks the US Department of Energy funds to develop and license the HI-SMUR technology [3.17].

.

3.3. Gas Cooled Reactors

The inputs in this category are mostly related to High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRs).

According to reference [3.8], “historically, HTGRs have been considered primarily for high temperature non-electrical applications, such as hydrogen production or coal gasification, etc. For this purpose, all HTGR designs employ tri-isotropic (TRISO) fuel appearing as tiny (typically, 0.5 mm in diameter) ceramic fuel kernels with multiple ceramic coatings (typically, several pyrocarbon layers and a silicon carbide layer). TRISO fuel has a proven capability to confine fission products at high temperatures (up to 1600oC in the long-term) and operate reliably at very high fuel burn-ups up to 120 MWday/kg [3.18]”.

“Traditional” HTGR design is that using the direct gas-turine Brayton cycle offering high energy conversion efficiency (up to 55% against 32% in PWR) and incorporating provisions for multiple co-generation options, such as hydrogen production and seawater desalination [3.2]. However, deployment of such designs, which are the Japanese GTHTR300 [3.2, 3.8], the Russian-US GT-MHR [3.10], and the US NGNP [3.19] is being considered within the timeframe of 2025 and beyond.

A single design that is ready for deployment today appears to be the Chinese HTR-PM (see Fig. 3.5), which uses the concept of a moveable pebble bed fuel (wherein the TRISO coated particles are embedded

in graphite balls that move along the annular core in reactor operation), similar to that of PBMR 6 but employs an indirect cycle with superheated steam in the power circuit [3.2, 3.8]. The used Rankine cycle with multiple reheats of steam secures plant efficiency of about 42%. The HTR-PM provides for no non-electrical applications and is deemed for electricity production within a standard three module plant. It’s design is backed by a decade long operation of a 10 MW(th) HTR-10 prototype at the Tsinghua University in China [3.2].

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarize general characteristics and design status of HTR-PM.

Table 3.3. General characteristics of HTR-PMSMR name Company/Country Electric/Thermal

power, MWNon-electrical products

Plant configuration

HTR-PM [3.2, 3.8 ] Huanheng Shandong Shidaowan Nuclear Power Co., China

105.5/250 (per module)

No Standard 3-module land based plant;

Pilot plant will be with 2 modules.

Table 3.4. General characteristics (continued) and design status of HTR-PMSMR name Construction

period/Refuelling interval, months

Design stage Licensing stage Targeted deployment date

HTR-PM 48/On-line pebble transport

Detailed design completed

License issued Construction start-up in 2012

Fig. 3.5. Layout of the HTR-PM reactor module [3.1].

6 Design development for PBMR has been stopped in 2010 owing to a financial collapse of the South African PBMR Pty. Company [3.8].

Reactor Pressure Vessel

Steam generator

Control rod drives

Pebble bed fuel

The kernels of TRISO particles in the HTR fuel contain UO2, UC and UCO [3.1]. The enrichment of fuel is 8.9% by 235U.

The HTR-PM has been licensed for construction at the Shidaowan site in China in 2011, but construction was postponed owing to the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan7. Necessary stress tests now being completed, the start-up of construction is expected this year. Should the project progress as scheduled, the pilot HTR-PM plant would be ready for operation in 2016.

The industrial group created for the implementation of this project plans to build additional 6 three-modular units on the site, to exploit bringing down capital costs via the effects of learning [3.20].

In addition to what is mentioned in Tables 3.3, 3.4, the General Atomics (USA) develops a conceptual design of the EM2 fast gas cooled reactor of 240 MW(e) deemed to produce power from non-reprocessed spent fuel of conventional operating reactors [3.21]. The development is linked to the Generation-IV programme and the targeted timeframes for its deployment are well beyond 2025. Few technical data is available for this design concept, although it’s mentioned that EM2 will be to a large extent based on the GT-MHR design experience.

3.4. Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors

According to reference [3.8], “sodium has high heat capacity, allowing linear heat rates in the reactor core as high as 485 W/cm, but reacts exothermically with air and water. For this reason all sodium cooled fast reactors incorporate an intermediate heat transport system with secondary sodium as a working fluid. Primary sodium delivers heat generated in the reactor core to an intermediate heat exchanger located within the reactor vessel (pool type reactor) or outside (loop type reactor). Typically, older-design smaller capacity sodium cooled fast reactors are (or were) loop type, while newer and higher capacity designs are (or were) pool type. Secondary sodium delivers core heat to the steam generators located reasonably far from the reactor in a dedicated premise to localize the impacts of still possible steam-sodium reaction. Indirect Rankine cycle on superheated steam is used for power conversion.”

Tables 3.5 and 3.6 summarize general characteristics and design status of nearer-term SMRs belonging to SFR technology line.

Table 3.5. General characteristics of SMRs (SFRs) SMR name Company/Country Electric/Thermal

power, MWNon-electrical products

Plant configuration

PRISM [3.1] GE-Hitachi, USA - Japan

155/471 (per module) None Standard 3-module plant configuration

4S [3.3] Toshiba Corporation, Japan

10/471 (50 MW(e) option)

Potable water: 34 000 m3/day (option);

Hydrogen: 6.5 t/day;

Process heat or steam (option).

Single-unit land based plant

7 Initial construction actions on the site have actually been performed.

Table 3.6. General characteristics (continued) and design status of near-term SMRs (SFRs)SMR name Construction

period/Refuelling interval, months

Design stage Licensing stage Targeted deployment date

PRISM No data/18 Detailed design Original design licenses in 1994;

Pre-licensing negotiations in progress for the updated design;

Licensing application planned in 2012

Around 2020

4S 12, on the site/360 (whole core refuelling)

Preliminary design completed;

Systems validation in progress.

Pre-licensing negotiations in progress;

Licensing application planned in 2012

First-of-a-kind unit after 2014

Both of the design concepts highlighted in Tables 3.5, 3.6 are modular pool-type reactors incorporating intermediate heat transport system based on sodium coolant.

The PRISM design has been developed specifically for the purpose of buring the plutonium accumulated in spent fuel of the present day reactors. It is a dedicated reactor for plutonium burning, which also generates electricity. PRISM is designed to operate in a closed nuclear fuel cycle; it employs U-Pu-Zr metallic fuel with the initial plutonium content of 26% [3.1]. As such, it is not being considered for deployment in countries that do not possess nuclear weapons. PRISM is designed to be a part of the advanced recycling center for spent nuclear fuel.

The PRISM design is backed by the technology and experience of the EBR-II fast reactor operated at the Argonne National Laboratory site in the USA between 1965 and 1994 [3.22].

The PRISM reactor bloack incorporates three reactor modules, each with its own steam generator, connected to a signle turbine generator. The reactor modules are located underground while the turbine unit is located above the ground level [3.1]. Passive air cooling is used as ultimate heat sink.

In 1994, the US NRC has completed pre-licensing consideraftion of the PRISM (in its then available version) and, upon the results of the completed consideration, issued the NUREG-1368 document [3.23]. More recently, GE-Hitachi has initiated pre-licensing negotiations with the US NRC and defined the date of a formal licensing application.

GE-Hitachi has enterd into research partnership with the Savannah River Nuclear Solutions to explore options of building the PRISM demonstration reactor at the US DOE’s Savannah River Site [3.24]. GE-Hitach are also negotiating with the UK companies to examine an option of building PRIS at the Sellafield site in the UK to reduce the stockpile of military-grade plutonium accumulated at this site [3.25].

The 4S design, see Fig. 3.6, has been developed over the past two decades, first, by the CRIEPI and then, by the Toshiba Corporation [3.3]. In its present version it appears as a 10 MW(e) unit with 30 years of continuous operation on the site without opening the reactor vessel lid, after which whole core refuelling is performed by a dedicated vendor team who bring with them (for the period of refuelling) new fuel load, the refuelling equipment and the equipment for spent fuel transportantion. The fuel is U-Zr alloy, the initial enrichment is less than 20% of 235U by weight. Optionally, a 50 MW(e) version of the 4S with 10-year refuelling interval is being considered, but only at a conceptual design level [3.3].

Fig. 3.6. Layout of the 4S plant [3.1].

4S uses passive air cooling as an ultimate heat sink. Burn-up reactivity change over a 30-year lifetime is compensated by pre-programmed upward movement of the graphite reflector [3.10].

Which is unusual for sodium cooled reactors, the 4S design concept optionally provides for hydrogen and oxygen production by high temperature electrolysis method, and also foresees other non-electrical applications [3.3, 3.8].

The 4S is at advanced design stage with pre-licensing negotiations with the US NRC initiated and the date of formal licensing application set for the second quarter of 2012 [3.26]. The vendor, Toshiba Corporation, is working with the city of Galena (Alaska, USA) regarding 4S application and as power and heat source for that small city [3.1].

However, no matter how early the licensing and deployment of the first-of-a-kind 4S takes place, its 30-year lifetime would require a long testing and demonstration period for the prototype plant. Therefore, commercial export deployments of the 4S cannot be realistically expected before 2025.

3.5. Lead-bismuth cooled reactors

According to reference [3.8], “lead-bismuth eutectics is chemically inert in air and water, has a very high boiling point of 1670oC, has a very high density enabling an effective heat removal at the close-to-atmospheric gravity defined pressures and, owing to a freezing point of 125oC, solidifies in ambient air contributing to the effective self-curing of cracks if they ever appear in the primary lead-bismuth coolant boundary.” For these reasons, “a typical lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor design concept is that of a two-circuit indirect cycle plant. Different from sodium, lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors employ no intermediate heat transport system.”

“A principal technical issue with the lead-bismuth eutectics is the corrosion of the fuel element claddings and structural materials in the coolant flow. Corrosion is temperature-dependent and, according to multiple studies performed worldwide [3.27], is easier to cope with at lower temperatures. In Russia the technology for reliable operation of stainless steel based structural materials in lead-bismuth eutectics was developed, allowing a reactor core continuous operation in the course of 7-8 years within a moderate temperature range below ~500oC. The technology includes chemical control of the coolant” (ibidem).

Tables 3.7 and 3.8 summarize general characteristics and design status of nearer-term SMRs belonging to LBFR technology line.

Table 3.7. General characteristics of SMRs (LBFRs) SMR name Company/Country Electric/Thermal

power, MWNon-electrical products

Plant configuration

SVBR-100 [3.3] JSC “AKME Engineering”, Russia

101.5 (with non-electrical applications disabled)/280

Heat for district heating: 550 GCal/hour for a 4-module plant, or

Potable water : 200 000 m3/day per module

Single-unit land based plant.

Multi-module land based plants.

Barge-mounted plant as an option.

GEN4Energy Module8 [3.28]

GEN4 Energy Inc., USA

25/70 (per module) Heat, potable water, hydrogen, or process steam, as options

Single- or multi-module land based plants

Table 3.8. General characteristics (continued) and design status of near-term SMRs (LBFR)SMR name Construction

period/Refuelling interval, months

Design stage Licensing stage Targeted deployment date

SVBR-100 42/(84-96) Detailed design in progress

Not started 2017 (prototype plant for technology demonstration)

GEN4 Energy Module 21 on the site/(60-180), refuelling at the factory

Early conceptual design

Pre-licensing negotiations initiated

2018, first-of-a-kind plant

The SVBR-100 design is backed by 80 reactor-years of operation experience of the propulsion reactors of the seven Russian Alpha-class nuclear submarines [3.3, 3.8]. In addition to the resolution of the corrosion problem, Russian submarine programme had succeeded in resolving the problem of volatile 210Po trapping9 and developed a safe freezing/defreezing procedure for the lead-bismuth coolant.

Like all liquid metal cooled reactors, SVBR-100 operates at near-atmospheric pressure. As the coolant based on lead-bismuth eutectics is chemically intert in water and air, the plant has no intermediate heat transport system. The compact SVBR-100 module is immersed in a refillable pool with water at the atmospheric pressure. Boiling of water in the pool helps remove the heat from the reactor vessel outer surface in accidents.

SVBR-100 can operate with different types of nuclear fuel. For the near-term, uranium-dioxide based fuel fuel load is considered with the uranium enrichment of 16.3% by weight on average [3.3]. The reactor is designed for continuous operation on the site in the course of 7-8 years, after which whole core refulling is performed on the site by a dedicated vendor’s team.

When operated in a closed nuclear fuel cycle, SVBR-100 will retain the effective fissile mass in the core, i.e., will require no additional fissile materials to be added at a refuelling [3.3].

SVBR-100 is being developed by the JSC “AKME Engineering” [3.29] founded by the State Atomic Energy Corporation “Rosatom” and the private JSC “EvroSibEnergo”, a daughter company of the Russian RUSAL company. The financing proceeds smoothly and the target is to build a prototype on the territory of the RIIAR in Dimitrovgrad, Russia, in 2017.

The GEN4 Energy Module (formerly known as the Hyperion Power Module [3.1, 3.28]) shares many common features with the SVBR-100. The difference is that it employs natural circulation of the primary

8 Formerly known as the Hyperion Power Module.9 Polonium-210 is a strong alpha emitter that is lethally toxic to human beings if inhaled or digested; 210Po is generated from 209Bi under irradiation and has a half-life of ~138 days [3.8].

coolant in normal operation mode (SVBR-100 uses pumps for that purpose) and is assumed to be fuelled and defuelled at a factory (SVBR-100 provides for whole-core on-site refuelling). The GEN4 Energy design is based on the results of R&D carried out at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA). Like SVBR-100, it is assumed to be used within single- or multi-module nuclear power plants, see Fig. 3.7.

Fig. 3.7. Layout of the GEN4 Energy plant [3.28].

The design is being furthered by the GEN4 Energy Inc. [3.28], a private company created to develop, license and commercialize the GEN4 Energy Module. GEN4 Energy Inc. has established a partnership with the Savannah River Solutions to explore options to build first-of-a-kind, non-commercial GEN4 Energy Module on the Savannah River Site in USA.

No matter how early the first-of-a-kind, non-commercial SVBR-100 or GEN4 Energy Module plants are deployed, the long refuelling intervals provided for by their designs (5-15 years) will necessite long testing and demonstration programmes. Their emergence as exportable commercial products, therefore, could be realistically expected not before 2025.

3.6. Conclusion to Chapter 3

The information on design status and deployment potential of the advanced SMRs provided in the previous sections indicates that by and around 2020 only the reactors employing PWR technology (as shown in Tables 3.1, 3.2) and a single reactor employing the HTGR technology (as shown in Tables 3.3, 3.4) could be deployed. In case of success, these reactors could be considered for export to developing countries starting from the first half of 2020-s.

The designers of all PWR type and HTGR type SMRs mentioned above foresee the deployment of their pilot plants in the country of origin, where such plants are needed on a variety of off-grid locations or are in demand by the utilities whose own funds are to small to procure an NPP with a large reactor.

The plants that could be deployed by and around 2020 include land based as well as barge mounted plants. Unit power varies from 8.5 to 300 MW(e) with twin-unit or multi-module plant option provided in the majority of cases. The fact that the reactors are small does not mean the overall capacity of a power station with such reactors needs to be small. Actually, it could be as large as that of a power plant with large nuclear reactors, although achieved in smaller increments.

Non-electrical applications (heat for district heating, sewater desalination) are included in the designs of the pilot SMR developed by Russia and the Republic of Korea. In other designs concepts they are foreseen as an option for future (not pilot) nuclear power plants.

Load following operation capability of SMRs is unlikely to exceed that of the state-of-the-art large reactors. For co-generation plants, an option to switch between electricity generation and non-electrical product production at a constant reactor thermal power level may be a solution to enhance load following; however, safety implications of such a solution still need to be examined.

References to Chapter 3

[3.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs, A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org, IAEA, Vienna (2011): http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/files/SMR-booklet.pdf

[3.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[3.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007):http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[3.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected Development, IAEA Technical Report Series 407, Vienna (2002): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS407_scr/D407_start.pdf

[3.5] Enhanced CANDU-6 Technical Summary, AECL, Canada: http://www.aecl.ca/Assets/Publications/EC6-TS_Eng.pdf

[3.6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Development Status of Small and Medium Reactor Systems, IAEA-TECDOC-881, Vienna (1996): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_881_web.pdf

[3.7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS): http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

[3.8] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[3.9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS): http://aris.iaea.org

[3.10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1399_web.pdf

[3.11] Yuri P. Fadeev, “KLT-40s Reactor Plant for the Floating CNPP FPU”, In: Materials of the Interegional Workshop on Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology for Near Term Deployment, IAEA, Vienna, 4-8 July 2011: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Jul-4-8-ANRT-WS/2_%D0%9ALT-40S_VBER_OKBM_Afrikantov_Fadeev.pdf

[3.12] Atomic-energy.ru Web-site, “Rosenergoatom Plans to Commission Pilot Floating NPP in 2014”, 31 January 2012: http://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2012/01/31/30384 (in Russian)

[3.13] WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, “Nuclear Power in Argentina”, Updated in November 2011: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf96.html

[3.14] Babcock & Wilcox Company site, “Generation mPower and TVA Sign Letter of Intent for B&W mPower™ Reactor Project”, Press Release, 16 June 2011:

http://www.babcock.com/news_and_events/2011/20110616a.html

[3.15] Finance.yahoo.com Web-site, “Westinghouse and Ameren Missouri Partner in Pursuit of DOE Investment Funds to develop and License SMR Technology”, Press Release Westinghouse Electric

Company, 19 April 2012: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/westinghouse-ameren-missouri-partner-pursuit-183000574.html

[3.16] WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, “Partnership to Advance NuScale SMR Design”, Press Release 12 April 2012:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Partnership_to_advance_NuScale_SMR_design-1204114.html

[3.17] Stefan Anton, “HI-SMUR 140, Presentation to NRC, July 21, 2011: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1120/ML112070201.pdf

[3.18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Fuels and Materials, IAEA-TECDOC-1645, Vienna (2010): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1645_CD/Start.pdf

[3.19] WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, “AREVA Modular Reactor Selected for NGNP Development”, Press Release 15 February 2012: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Areva_modular_reactor_selected_for_NGNP_development-1502124.html

[3.20] Yujie Dong, “Status of Development and Deployment Scheme of HTR-PM in the People’s Republic of China”, In: Materials of the Interegional Workshop on Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology for Near Term Deployment, IAEA, Vienna, 4-8 July 2011: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Jul-4-8-ANRT-WS/5_CHINA_HTR-PM_TsinghuaU_Dong.pdf

[3.21] General Atomics Web-site, EM2 Technical Fact Sheet: http://www.ga.com/energy/em2/pdf/FactSheet-TechnicalFactSheetEM2.pdf

[3.22] Charles E. Stevenson, “The EBR-II Fuel Cycle Story”, ISBN: 0-89448-031-6, AND (2007), 287 p.

[3.23] Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid Metal Reactor. Final report”, NUREG-1368, US NRC (1994): http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10133164-2ZfTJr/native/10133164.pdf

[3.24] WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, “Prototype PRISM Proposed for Svannah River”, Press Release 28 October 2010:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Prototype_Prism_proposed_for_Savannah_River-2810104.html

[3.25] WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, “PRISM Proposed for UK Plutonium Disposal”, Press Release 01 December 2011: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Prism_proposed_for_UK_plutonium_disposal-0112114.html

[3.26] US NRC Web-site, Advanced Reactors, 4S: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/4s.html

[3.27] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation, IAEA-TECDOC-1569, Vienna (2008): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1569_web.pdf

[3.28] GEN4 Energy Web-site: http://www.gen4energy.com/

[3.29] “AKME Engineering” JSC Web-site: http://www.akmeengineering.com/aboutus.html (in English)

4. CONSIDERATION OF TECHNOLOGY HOLDERS

(Rev0, 11 June 2012)

Considerations regarding small modular reactors (SMRs) by technology holders and designers of such reactors are presented and summarized in references [4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8].

An enveloping safety design approach for all SMRs is to eliminate as many accident initiators and/or to prevent as many accident consequences as possible, by design, and then to deal with the remaining accidents/consequences using plausible combinations of the active and passive safety systems and consequence prevention measures [4.5]. This approach is also targeted for Generation IV energy systems and, to a certain extent it is implemented in some near-term light water reactor designs of larger capacity, such as AP1000 and ESBWR [4.8].

Broader incorporation of inherent and passive safety design features has become a ‘trademark’ of many advanced reactor concepts, including the SMRs presented in Chapter 3. General features of SMRs that, in view of their designers, contribute to a particular effectiveness of the implementation of inherent and passive safety design features in smaller reactors are [4.5]:

- Larger surface-to-volume ratio, which facilitates easier decay heat removal, especially with a single-phase coolant (e.g., PWR and HTGR type reactors, see Chapter 3);

- An option to achieve compact primary coolant system design, e.g. integral or pool type primary coolant system, which could contribute to an effective suppression of certain initiating events, such as large-break LOCA or control rod ejection, or a modular design with short, or no at all piping and special features to prevent potential leaks from the primary circuit, as partially proven by the experience of marine propulsion reactors;

- Reduced core power density, facilitating easy use of many passive features and systems;

- Lower potential hazard that generically results from lower source term owing to lower fuel inventory, lower non-nuclear energy stored in the reactor, and lower integral decay heat rate.

The designers of most of the advanced SMRs foresee that safety design features contributing to defence in depth levels 1–410 could be sufficient to meet the objective of the defence in depth level 5 “Mitigations of radiological consequences of radioactive releases that could potentially result from accident conditions” [4.9], i.e., that the emergency planning measures outside the plant boundary might be reduced or even not needed at all. The design features of the SMRs indicated to make a contribution directly to Level 5 of defence in depth are lower fuel inventory, lower non-nuclear energy stored in the reactor (e.g., for PWRs – energy of potential steam-zirconium reaction), and lower integral decay heat rate of a smaller reactor as compared to the large-capacity one, plus broader incorporation of reliable passive mechanisms and passive systems for decay heat removal in accidents.

Regarding plant protection from the impacts of natural and human-induced external events, the

10 Levels 1-4 of defence in depth are [4.9]:

Level 1: for prevention of deviations from normal operation and the failure of items important to safety;

Level 2: for detection and control of deviations from normal operational states in order to prevent anticipated operational occurrences at the plant from escalating into accident conditions;

Leve 3: ensures that inherent and/or engineered safety features, safety systems and procedures are provided that are capable of preventing damage to the reactor core or significant off-site releases and returing the plant to a safe state;

Level 4: for mitigation of the consequences of accidents that result from failure of the third level of defence in depth.

major drivers for safety design development over the past one-and-a-half decades were 09/11 events in the USA (NPP protection against aircraft crash) and, more recently, the Fukushima-Daiichi accident, which brought forward the issues of NPP protection against the impacts of strong tsunamis or floods combined with station black-out, e.g., caused by a powerful earthquake.

The SMRs presented in Chapter 3 “respond” to these requirements by moving the nuclear islands underground (USA SMR designs) and/or surrounding the reactor vessels or small containments with water, see Fig. 4.1; by considering sinking of a barge mounted NPPs within the design basis (Russian barge mounted plants) and by exploiting higher potential of SMRs for passive decay heat removal, resulting in grace periods of 72 hours and no need in continuous emergency electrical supply on the site11 following a severe accident.

Fig. 4.1. Example of a 12-Unit 540 MW(e) NuScale Power Plant (NuScale, USA) [4.10].

Smaller dimensions of the reactor vessel and integral design of the primary circuit make it easier to achieve seismic design for higher peak ground accelerations, such as 0.3g [4.3].

Regarding economics, the designers of SMRs all examine design and deployment approaches making use of certain advantages provided by smaller reactor capacity to exploit incremental capacity increase and concentrated deployment options, achieve reduced design and operational complexity, simplified maintenance, or/and to incorporate higher overall energy conversion efficiency [4.2, 4.4]. Some design approaches for SMRs may be unique, i.e., cannot be reproduced in reactors of larger capacity and, therefore, represent alternative strategies to the economies of scale [4.6].

The common strategies to improve economic performance of SMRs are [4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8]:

To incorporate an option of incremental capacity increase to achieve economic benefits of “just in-time” incremental capacity additions, taking a benefit of smaller module sizes to:

11 Batteries may be needed over a short period to start the operation of passive safety systems.

- Achieve learning curve acceleration and discount rate savings per total capacity installed; and

- Minimize investment risk;

Benefit from factory mass production through serial manufacture of standardized plant modules, incorporating unified structures, systems and components, see Fig. 4.2;

Reduce site construction time and/or construction cost and achieve an early start of investment return by sizing the reactor for transportability (or transportability of modules), and

Reduce plant complexity by eliminating as many as possible accident initiators and/or preventing as many accident consequences as possible, by design (resulting in a reduced number and design complexity of plant systems and components).

The approaches to incremental capacity increase include [4.4]:

Setting aside space for future incremental plants;

Sizing the switchyard, water and district heat distribution pipelines, etc. for growth;

Sharing of railroad, road, and seaway access facilities among future increment plants; as well as

Providing multi-module plant configuration with certain shared components, see Fig. 4.1 as an example.

Fig. 4.2. U.S.A. DOE view on options to move on with mass deployment of SMRs, taking into account carbon free (clean) energy considerations [4.11]

The details about expected economic performance of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 are highlighted in more detail in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6.

Regarding proliferation resistance and physical protection, the designers of SMRs are aware that their designs may serve customers located in off-grid locations with difficult access, on remote islands, or in certain countries/regions of countries where the electricity grids and population are small. Alternatively, staggered build of SMRs could offer attractive investment profile for

countries where investment capabilities and the overall demand of energy are relatively small, but would require a larger number of reactor units to achieve the targeted overall capacity.

The targeted remote application conditions of some SMRs or, alternatively, the targeted multiplicity of NPPs with such reactors would both require that the proliferation resistance and physical protection features of such reactors are enhanced, to allow efficient and cost effective verification and security measures.

All SMRs will provide for the implementation of the established safeguards verification procedures under the agreements of member states with the IAEA. In addition to this, SMRs may offer certain intrinsic proliferation resistance features to prevent the misuse, diversion or undeclared production of fissile materials and to facilitate the implementation of safeguards [4.2, 4.4, 4.12].

The features contributing to proliferation resistance of water cooled SMRs are essentially similar to those of presently operated light water reactors. They include low uranium enrichment, an unattractive isotopic composition of the plutonium in the discharged fuel, and radiation barriers provided by the spent fuel [4.2, 4.4]. The designers of some SMRs mention they incorporate safeguards-friendly design features from early design stage of their SMRs. For example, such feature may be a single and easily monitored path for spent fuel assemblies removal from the reactor core to the spent fuel pool, with no option to move the fuel assemblies elsewhere without destruction of the reactor building [4.2]. Many of the PWR type SMRs presented in Chapter 3 incorporate increased refueling intervals and once-at-a-time whole core refueling12, which contributes to minimization of necessary safeguards effort for such reactors.

The intrinsic proliferation resistance features common to all HTGRs include high fuel burn-up (low residual inventory of plutonium, high content of 240Pu); a difficult to process fuel matrix; radiation barriers; and a low ratio of fissile to fuel-block/fuel-pebble mass.

Although several HTGRs make a provision for reprocessing of the TRISO fuel, the corresponding technology has not been established yet and, until such time as when the technology becomes readily available, the lack of the technology is assumed to provide an enhanced proliferation resistance [4.2].

References [4.1, 4.4, 4.13], inter alia, present small factory fuelled and refueled reactors with long refueling intervals. With such reactors, all operations with nuclear fuel (fresh and spent) are outsourced to a centralized factory. In this, such reactors would require neither refuelling equipment, nor fresh and spent fuel storages on the site. Some designs of such reactors provide for lifetime operation with weld-sealed reactor, which suggests an option of applying item accountability on the reactor as a whole [4.4]. The above mentioned features could probably provide higher non-proliferation assurances to the international community, once relevant small reactors are deployed.

Of the near term PWR type SMRs presented in Chapter 3, several US designs (e.g., NuScale and mPower) mention factory fuelling and defueling of the reactor as a possible future option. However, for the near term, all PWR type SMR designs of Chapter 3 omit the low-output Russian ABV provide for on-site refueling of the reactor, be it a whole core refueling as is the case with some of the US designs. The reasons for such a selection are explained in Section 6.4 of Chapter 6.

Regarding physical protection, the SMR designers put a larger emphasis on the intrinsic security as provided by design features complicating the access to nuclear fuel during reactor operation (see the discussion on proliferation resistance in previous paragraphs). Broader reliance on inherent and passive safety features also contributes to enhanced security as it eliminates or de-

12 In the case of a developing country, whole core refuelling could be executed by a dedicated vendor’s team who bring with them the refuelling equipment to be present on the site during the refuelling period only [4.4].

rates some accident sequences in a SMR based plant that otherwise could be initiated though malevolent human actions from outside of the plant or by the insiders [4.2, 4.3, 4.4].

Regarding nuclear fuel and fuel cycle, most of the designers of near term SMRs presented in Chapter 3 target standard uranium-dioxide fuel with fuel enrichment by 235U below 5% by weight. Smaller Russian designs, the KLT-40S and the ABV, use the unified cermet fuel with the enrichment of 14.1% 235U by weight [4.8]. For the VBER-300 Russian design uranium-thorium based fuel (Radkowsky Thorium Fuel concept [4.14]) has been considered [4.2]. The Chinese high temperature gas cooled reactor HTR-PM will use TRISO based pebble fuel with UO2 kernels of 8.77% enrichment by 235U [4.7]. Fuel cycle is typically once-through for the near term SMRs; however, in Russia they consider implementing a closed fuel cycle to recover plutonium for feeding the commercial fast reactors [4.2, 4.4].

Longer term SMRs, such as SVBR-100 or GenIV Energy offer more flexibility in nuclear fuel and fuel cycle, allowing the same design to operate on UOX, MOX or nitride fuel in a once-through or a closed nuclear fuel cycle, see Chapter 3.

Regarding waste management and environmental impacts, the SMR designers argue that smaller number and less complex design of systems and components as well as long refueling intervals (or even factory fuelling) would contribute effectively to minimization of waste and reduce the adverse environmental and health impacts [4.2, 4.4]. Specifically, such designs as mPower and HI-SMUR (see Chapter 3) provide for air cooling of the turbine condensers, which minimizes both, requirements to water availability on the site, and environmental impact due to the discharge water releases.

Regarding non-electrical applications, all near-term SMRs except for the Chinese HTR-PM do not exclude incorporating in their design co-generation options with heat or desalinated water or synthetic fuel production [4.2, 4.4, 4.8]. However, such option is explicitly incorporated only in the designs of Russian and Korean SMRs [4.7]. Recently, it was decided that first-of-a-kind Russian barge mounted NPP with the two KLT-40S reactors to be deployed in Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka region, in 2014 will be used for electricity generation only.

Regarding manoeuvrability and load following operation the designers of near term SMRs from Chapter 3 indicate no major difference with the present day large capacity water cooled reactors [4.7]. The current plan of SMR designers is to use such reactors for base-load electricity generation in their home countries. However, for the case of a future co-generation option some designers foresee that switching between electricity generation and non-electrical product at constant thermal power of the reactor may offer an enhanced load following capability, see Fig. 4.3.

Finally, an incentive to use SMRs to expand future carbon free (aka clean) energy is strong in the USA, where SMRs are, inter alia, viewed as possible replacements for the old coal fire and other carbon emitting plants [4.15]. Although in less explicit form, such incentive is also present in countries with large population where burning of the coal or its cheaper substitutes creates daily smog in big cities (the examples are India and China).

It must be noted that the designers of most of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 target the deployment of prototype or first-of-a-kind plants and the subsequent units within their respective countries, to meet certain domestic energy needs. Being different from what was observed in 1990s and early 2000s when many SMR concepts were from the outset targeted for export to developing countries [4.2, 4.4, 4.16], this situation is in good synergy with the present-day user requirements of developing countries, see Chapter 5.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

13:0

0

14:0

0

15:0

0

16:0

0

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21:0

0

22:0

0

23:0

0

0:00

1:00

2:00

Wat

er P

rodu

ction

Rat

e m

3 /hr

Time of Day

Processed Water Flowrate (m3/hr)

Power to Grid (MW)

Elec

tric

Pow

er to

Grid

(MW

e)

Figure 4.3. NuScale Module Desalinated Water Production Rate and Power Production Rate as a function of time of day using the hourly average residential load profile for

Southern California Edison Territory [4.8]

Prototypes or first-of-a-kinds of all SMRs presented in Chapter 3 would be, or are being licensed according to the currently emplaced regulatory norms and practices in their countries of origin. Further advancement of regulatory norms toward risk-informed approach could facilitate design improvements in the next plants and, specifically, help justify reduced off-site emergency planning [4.5], see the discussion in Chapter 6.4

Conclusion to Chapter 4

Small modular reactors (SMRs) presented in Chapter 3 appear to be on the forefront of advanced technology development for relevant reactor types.

An enveloping safety design approach for all SMRs is to eliminate as many accident initiators and/or to prevent as many accident consequences as possible, by design, and then to deal with the remaining accidents/consequences using plausible combinations of the active and passive safety systems and consequence prevention measures.

Implementation of inherent and passive safety design features in smaller reactors could be more effective because of:

- Larger surface-to-volume ratio, which facilitates easier decay heat removal;

- Reduced core power density, facilitating easy use of many passive features and systems;

- Lower potential hazard that generically results from lower source term.

The designers of most of the SMRs foresee that the emergency planning measures outside the plant boundary might be reduced or even not needed at all.

The SMRs presented in Chapter 3 “respond” to lessons of the 9/11 and the Fukushima-Daiichi disasters by moving the nuclear islands underground and/or surrounding the reactor vessels or small containments with water, as well as by exploiting higher potential of SMRs for passive decay heat removal to achieve grace periods of 72 hours and eliminate the need for continuous emergency electrical supply on the site.

Regarding economics, the designers of SMRs all examine design and deployment approaches making use of certain advantages provided by smaller reactor capacity to exploit incremental capacity increase and concentrated deployment options, achieve reduced design and operational complexity, simplified maintenance, or/and to incorporate higher overall energy conversion efficiency.

The targeted remote application conditions of some SMRs or, alternatively, the targeted multiplicity of NPPs with such reactors would both require that the proliferation resistance and physical protection features of such reactors are enhanced, to allow efficient and cost effective verification and security measures.

All SMRs will provide for the implementation of the established safeguards verification procedures under the agreements of member states with the IAEA. In addition to this, SMRs offer certain intrinsic proliferation resistance features to prevent the misuse, diversion or undeclared production of fissile materials and to facilitate the implementation of safeguards.

For some small reactors, all operations with nuclear fuel (fresh and spent) are outsourced to a centralized factory. In this, such reactors would require neither refuelling equipment, nor fresh and spent fuel storages on the site. The above mentioned features could probably provide higher non-proliferation assurances to the international community, once relevant small reactors are deployed.

Regarding physical protection, the SMR designers put a larger emphasis on the intrinsic security as provided by design features complicating the access to nuclear fuel during reactor operation. Broader reliance on inherent and passive safety features also contributes to enhanced security as it helps eliminates or de-rate some accidents that might otherwise be initiated by malevolent human actions.

Fuel cycle is typically once-through for the near term SMRs, although in Russia they consider implementing a closed fuel cycle to recover plutonium for feeding the commercial fast reactors.

Longer term SMRs offer more flexibility in nuclear fuel and fuel cycle, allowing the same design to operate on UOX, MOX or nitride fuel in a once-through or a closed nuclear fuel cycle.

Regarding waste management and environmental impacts, the SMR designers argue that smaller number and less complex design of systems and components as well as long refueling intervals would contribute effectively to minimization of waste and reduce the adverse environmental and health impacts.

Regarding non-electrical applications, all near-term SMRs except for the Chinese HTR-PM do not exclude incorporating in their design co-generation options with heat or desalinated water or synthetic fuel production. However, such options are explicitly incorporated only in the designs of the Russian and Korean SMRs.

Regarding manoeuvrability and load following operation the designers of near term SMRs from Chapter 3 indicate no major difference with the present day large capacity water cooled reactors. However, for the case of future co-generation options some designers foresee that switching between electricity generation and non-electrical product at constant thermal power of the reactor may offer an enhanced load following capability.

Finally, an incentive to use SMRs to expand future carbon free (aka clean) energy is strong in the USA and some other technology holder countries.

All in all, the above mentioned considerations of technology holders regarding SMRs are in line with the user requirements to nuclear power plants in developing countries, see Chapter 5.

It is important that the designers of most of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 target licensing and deployment of prototype or first-of-a-kind plants and the subsequent units within their respective countries, to meet certain domestic energy needs. Such situation is in good synergy with the present-day user requirements of developing countries, which require NPPs to be licensed and operated first in the country of origin.

Prototypes or first-of-a-kinds of all SMRs presented in Chapter 3 would be, or are being licensed according to the currently emplaced regulatory norms and practices in their countries of origin.

Further advancement of regulatory norms toward risk-informed approach could facilitate design improvements in the next plants and, specifically, help justify reduced off-site emergency planning.

References to Chapter 4

[4.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactors: Design Features, Safety Approaches and R&D Trends, Final report of a technical meeting held in Vienna, 7-11 June 2004, IAEATECDOC-1451, Vienna (2005): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1451_web.pdf

[4.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[4.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advanced Nuclear Plant Design Options to Cope with External Events, IAEA-TECDOC-1487, Vienna (February 2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1487_web.pdf

[4.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007):http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[4.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1399_web.pdf

[4.6] "Approaches to Assess Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors"/ V. Kuznetsov and N. Barkatullah. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Opportunities and Challenges for Water Cooled Reactors in the 21st Century, 27-30 October 2009, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Paper 1S01: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/topic1/1S01_V.%20Kuznetsov.pdf

[4.7] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[4.8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS): http://aris.iaea.org

[4.9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety of Nuclear power Plants: Design, IAEA Safety Standards Series: Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/1, Vienna (2012): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1534_web.pdf

[4.10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs, A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org, IAEA, Vienna (2011): http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/files/SMR-booklet.pdf

[4.11] John E. Kelly, “Federal Support for the Growth of the Small Modular Reactor Industry”, In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Platts SMR Conference, 21-22 May 2012, Hilton Crystal City, Arlington, USA.

[4.12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Proliferation Resistance Fundamentalsfor Future Nuclear Energy Systems, STR-332, Vienna (2002), referenced on page 122 in IAEA-TECDOC-1362 and on page 149 in IAEA-TECDOC-1434.

[4.13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling: Neutronic Characteristics, Emergency Planning and Development Scenarios, Final Report of an IAEA Coordinated Research Project, IAEA-TECDOC-1652, Vienna (2010): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1652_web.pdf

[4.14] Alex Galperin, Paul Reichert and Alvin Radkowsky, “Thorium Fuel for Light Water Reactors – reducing Proliferation Potential of Nuclear Power Fuel Cycle”, Science & Global Security, 1997, Vol. 6, pp. 265-290

[4.15] Ioannis N. Kessides, “The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered: Risks, Uncertainties, and Continued Promise”, Science Direct, Elsevier B. V., JEPO-D-12-00425R1 (2012)

[4.16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design and Development Status of Small and Medium Reactor Systems, IAEA-TECDOC-881, Vienna (1996): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_881_web.pdf

5. CONSIDERATIONS OF USERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

(Rev0, 22 May 2012)

5.1. Introduction to Chapter 5

Over the previous and in the ongoing decade some documents presenting user considerations and requirements to small and medium sized reactors by developing countries have been produced.

In 2000, IAEA has published a document titled “Guidance for preparing user requirements documents for small and medium reactors and their application” [5.1]. This document includes an Annex which presents national small and medium reactor user requirements developed in Indonesia. The requirements were developed with the assistance of IAEA and in view of the PWR, HTGR and heavy water reactor technologies that were considered for deployment in Indonesia at the time. With some modifications, the requirements are still in place today and are used for small reactor pre-feasibility studies in Indonesia mentioned in Section 2.2 [5.2].

In 2009, IAEA published a document presenting a two-year study on “Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems: Report of Stage 1” [5.3]. For this document, the countries “were selected based on the World Bank definition of developing economies. The countries included have also given an indication of interest in developing or deploying new nuclear power plants. Countries that already have a significant ongoing nuclear programme (e.g. China and India) were excluded.”

The initial draft of reference [5.3] was “developed as a result of discussions with different stakeholders and organizations from seven countries ─ Bangladesh, Belarus, Baltic Consortium (Lithuania, Estonia and Poland, represented by Lithuania), Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico.” Later on the document was reviewed and amended by nearly 200 experts from 35 developing and industrialized countries – members of the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) [5.4].

Document [5.3] had not addressed small and medium sized reactors specifically; the considerations presented in apply to all nuclear reactors, independent of their capacity. Document [5.3] has also impacted a new revision of the Indonesian user requirements to small and medium sized reactors [5.2], with many of the positions among these two documents now being common.

Late 2010s saw a renewed interest in smaller reactors now more focused on small modular reactors (SMRs), see Chapter 3. To address more specifically user considerations related to small and medium sized reactor, in October 2011 IAEA/INPRO has convened a Dialogue Forum on “Nuclear Energy Innovations: CUC for Small and Medium-Sized Nuclear Power Reactors” [5.5]. The purpose of this forum was “to discuss user considerations (of both developing and developed countries) for small and medium-sized nuclear power reactors, in the light of conclusions reached in the CUC study and recent developments in small and medium-sized technologies.”

Regarding developing countries’ user requirements to smaller reactors, Indonesia remains the only country that has developed relevant national document. The considerations of other developing countries, therefore, could be traced only through a variety of spread sources or, in a consolidated way, through references such as [5.3, 5.5].

Findings and conclusions of the above mentioned publications in particular areas of consideration are summarized in brief below.

5.2. Proveness of design and technology

The Indonesian user requirements to small and medium sized reactors [5.1], as well as the IAEA reference [5.3] stipulate that “the overall proven NPP system should be concluded from several years of operation of reference NPP as a commercial plant with a good operational record”. Further to this, the requirement of proven technology suggests that “such technology should include overall nuclear power

plant systems and elements.” Proofs could be provided by “several years of operation in existing nuclear power plant” or by “full or part scale testing facilities”, or by “several years of operation in other applicable industries such as fossil power and process industries”.

Indonesian Regulation No. 43 of 2006 requires that the reference plant has 3 years of operation as a commercial plant with minimum average capacity factor of 75%. The Egyptian regulations for NPPs stipulate the selection of evolutionary technology representing the most recent example of the same technology that has more than 5 years of operation history [5.6].

Regarding the SMRs presented in Chapter 3, the above mentioned requirements are generally favourable, as all such reactors are planned to be built first in the country of origin. However, such reactors would need to operate for several years in the country of origin before being offered for export.

5.3. Reactor type and plant capacity

The Indonesian user requirements do not specify any preferences for reactor type; however, the earlier version of these requirements given in the Annex of reference [5.1] mentions light water cooled, high temperature gas cooled and heavy water reactors. Regarding unit size, two categories are introduced following the IAEA definition of small and medium sized reactors. Reactors with the electric output less than 300 MW(e) are rated small, while those of 300 – 700 MW(e) are referred to as medium sized.

The CUC document [5.3] which summarizes the responses and reviews from 31 user countries mentions that “all the experts expect the first unit in their country to be water cooled reactor types - Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) or Heavy Water Reactors (HWR). The main reason is that the experts require proven technology and virtually only these three reactor types have commercial operation experiences at present.”

Reference [5.3] also identifies preferences of the user countries regarding NPP unit size in the short term (until 2025), medium term (between 2025 and 2040) and longer term (between 2040 and 2050), see Fig. 5.1.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

N≤400 400<N≤700 700<N≤1100 1100<N≤1300 N>1300

Unit Capacity (MWe)

Num

ber o

f Uni

ts

New Addition in 2040 - 2050

New Addition in 2025 - 2040

By 2025

Fig. 5.1. Results of survey – Number of new units in 31 Technology-User Countries (based on answers by 31 experts from these countries) [5.3]

Having in mind the requirement of proven technology (see Section 5.2), the peak of 700- 1100 MW(e) unit size observed in Fig. 5.1 is easily explainable, as namely the reactors within this size range represent the majority of those more recent designs developed in technology holder countries that have already gained at least 3-5 years of operation experience.

The concept of a multi-modular NPP, which is a cornerstone of many of the SMR concepts presented in Chapter 3, was neither addressed in the CUC study [5.3], nor communicated to the experts whose responses were used to produce the responses shown in Fig. 5.1. Should such concept be taken into account, the distribution of unit capacity preferences shown in Fig. 5.1 would be of little meaning because many, if not all of the plant capacities shown therein would turn to be within the range of a single, or a couple of collocated, flexible-capacity multi-module plants based on small modular reactors.

Regarding the SMRs presented in Chapter 3, the above mentioned requirements and preferences are generally favourable, omit the Chinese high temperature gas cooled design (HTR-PM, see Chapter 3).

5.4. Plant design

User considerations/requirements regarding plant design are applicable to many state-of the-art NPPs irrespective of their capacity. For example [5.1, 5.3]:

“The NPP should be designed based on standardized plant design and components that should be established to include the maximum numbers of site conditions without significantly increasing costs.”

“The design life of the NPP should be at least 60 years.” “The design of the plant should be simplified with the objective to minimize the number of types

of systems and components, without adverse impacts on the economics, and plant performance and safety, while improving ease of operation and maintenance.”

“The NPP design should be optimized to incorporate sufficient margins to enable high availability and to minimize the chance of exceeding regulatory limits.”

”The NPP design should be capable of refuelling cycle of at least 18 months.”

“The NPP should be designed for base load operation.”

“The NPP should have the flexibility for non-electrical application, if required.”

SMRs are unlikely to have any issues regarding the above mentioned requirements [5.7, 5.8].

In addition to the above mentioned, the Indonesian user requirements [5.1] suggest that “NPP should have the capability to use different fuels such as mixed oxide fuel of uranium and plutonium (MOX) and/or thorium oxide fuel in the future with minimum modification of the facilities.” As comes to the SMRs presented in Chapter 3, MOX fuel load is unlikely to pose any issues. As comes to thorium based fuel, only the Russian design VBER-300 is known to have been examined for such an option so far [5.9]. No major issues in making transfer to thorium containing fuel have been identified.

5.5. Construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning

According to [5.1, 5.3], “if required by the user the first nuclear power plant project should be implemented by turnkey contract”. This requirement is of no issue to the SMRs many of which provide for a high degree of factory pre-fabrication and, therefore, require minimum construction related activities on the site.

Further on, “the total duration of engineering, procurement and construction of the NPP should be less than 8 years.” The Indonesian user requirements [5.1] additionally suggest that “the NPP construction from the first concrete pour to commercial operation should be less than 5 years”. In most of the cases SMRs are likely to offer much shorter durations in this respect, see Chapter 3.

Regarding operation and maintenance, the considerations [5.3] are quite basic and could be met by many state-of-the-art NPPs independent of reactor capacity:

“The NPP should be capable of achieving an annual Availability Factor > 85%.”

“The number of unplanned automatic scrams attributed to the design should be less than 1 scram / year.”

Regarding the latter requirement, the SMRs which broadly incorporate inherent and passive safety features and passive safety systems are likely to have an advantage [5.10].

Regarding decommissioning, the recommendation is “the NPP should be designed for ease of decommissioning”. Being largely fabricated at a factory and delivered in factory assembled modules (which also could be disassembled easily), the SMRs could potentially offer many advantages in decommissioning [5.7, 5.9].

5.6. Economics and financing

The considerations for economics and financing presented in CUC report [5.3] suggest that “ levelized unit electricity generation cost of the NPP should be competitive with that of the comparable base-load electricity generation sources in the country.” In addition to this, the Indonesian user requirements suggest that economic evaluation of any proposal for introducing the NPP should be performed on the basis of the total present worth (calculated by the discounted cash flow method) and net generating cost per kW(e).

Meeting the requirement of a levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) being competitive with that of the comparable base-load electricity generation sources in the country is real a challenge for SMRs, because of the need to overcome the economy of scale [5.11]. The ways how this challenge could be addressed are discussed in more detail in Section 6.1.

Addition of the “total present worth” (aka net present value (NPV)) to the traditional levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) assessment could be very important for SMRs as in some cases it is their attractive NPV that might give them a chance to be competitive, see the discussion in Section 6.1.

5.7. Nuclear safety and licensing

User requirements/considerations [5.1, 5.3] in the area of nuclear safety and licensing are based on the state-of-the-art national regulations in technology holder countries and on the IAEA safety standards [5.12]. The basic recommendations are:

“The NPP shall meet the requirements of the IAEA Nuclear Safety Standards and comply with those of the user’s national nuclear regulator.”

“The NPP should comply with nuclear regulation of the country of system origin with regard to design approval.”

“The safety of the NPP design should be demonstrated by the best combination of deterministic and probabilistic safety analyses and the rationale for the choice of this combination should be explained by the supplier.”

“The supplier should ensure that the NPP uses only proven safety systems.” “The NPP should be designed to withstand the impact of external site’ specific events.” “The radiation dose to the general public should not exceed internationally recommended limits

and national limits, irrespective of the plant rated power.” “Objectives for severe core damage frequency and associated consequences should not be more

stringent than the limits acceptable in the supplier country, unless requested by the User.”

Regarding passive safety systems, earlier version of the Indonesian user requirement [5.1] suggested that such systems should be given a preference for smaller reactor designs. However, a more recent version of these requirements, as well as reference [5.3], suggest that:

“Selection of passive and active safety features be based on the following:

Overall plant safety performance Overall system reliability Maintainability Impact on plant economics

The rationale for the choice of this combination should be explained by the supplier.”

As comes to the generic user requirements/considerations in the areas of nuclear safety and licensing [5.1, 5.3], SMRs would have no issues at in meeting them all. However, some national regulations may be overly prescriptive and cautious about passive systems and novel technologies in general, as implemented in safety designs of some SMRs [5.3, 5.8]. In all cases, early initiation of pre-licensing negotiations with

the national regulatory authority would be helpful (see [5.13] for an example). In addition to this, a small-budget governmental programme to support national licensing of SMRs could be recommended (see [5.14] as an example).

SMR licensing experience acquired so far has revealed no major issues related to design certification and licensing of such reactors for operation in the country of origin [5.8].

5.8. Support from the vendor

Regarding support from the vendor, both references [5.1, 5.3] indicate a lot would be requested.

First of all, “the Supplier” is expected to “provide support for financing of the NPP project and pre-project activities.” In this, “the Supplier should assess potential project risks to project schedule and plant performance, and advise on how these risks should be managed.” “Mechanism for compensation of loss arising from construction delays or poor performance caused by Supplier should be stated and quantified.”

Smaller absolute capital outlays of the SMRs, increased scalability and reversibility of NPP projects with small modular reactors, as well as smaller associated financial risks, are likely to simplify meeting the above mentioned user requirements.

Further on, “the Supplier should assure fuel reloads for up to one third of the plant life, if the User assures to buy from the supplier for this time period.” Longer refueling intervals targeted for SMRs secure that meeting this requirement would be not more difficult for such reactors as compared to conventional NPPs with large capacity reactors.

Another set of user requirements/considerations from [5.1, 5.3] suggests that “the design of equipment and components should allow for the supply of their replacement during the life of the NPP by manufacturers other than the original manufacturers.” “The Supplier should actively promote the establishment of international spare parts pool for assuring the supply of critical components over the plant lifetime.” Meeting such requirements may be more of an issue for SMRs, especially in the near-term, in view of diversity of the SMR design concepts and the unique technical features implemented in many of them. However, simplified balance of plant with off the shelf generating equipment could be a partial solution here.

Finally, “the Supplier should provide for training of the User’s personnel to increase their capabilities to undertake activities associated with construction of the NPP and its operation and maintenance during its life.” Higher degree of factory fabrication of SMRs (with minimum construction related actions required on the site) and simplified operation and maintenance of such reactors could facilitate meeting this requirement.

Other kinds of support from the vendor requested in [5.1, 5.3] appear to be capacity- and reactor type independent, for example:

“The Nuclear regulator in the Supplier’s country should provide support to the Nuclear regulator in the User’s country for carrying out its licensing and regulatory functions.”

“The Supplier should support the User in the preparation of license application and associated documentation.”

“Comprehensive and reliable NPP electricity generation cost information including capital cost break down should be made available to enable Indonesia to compare nuclear and other electricity generation sources in the country [5.1].”

5.9. Local participation and technology transfer

Regarding local participation and technology transfer, references [5.1, 5.3] point to the following main requirements/considerations:

Even “in the first few NPP projects in the User’s country, the Supplier should utilize local capabilities in civil works, project management and the manufacture of conventional components to the maximum extent possible.”

“The Supplier should support the improvement of existing local manufacturing capabilities for conventional components.”

“The Supplier should develop a plan together with the User to transfer the know-how to establish new local manufacturing capabilities for nuclear grade components and fuel fabrication, if required.”

These requirements appear favourable to the SMRs since many of them provide for the use of standard off the shelf balance of plant equipment. Moreover, future technology transfer might be an easier task for SMRs as the sizes of their components are not huge and might better meet the capabilities of the evolving national industries in developing countries.

5.10. Proliferation resistance

Regarding proliferation resistance, both references [5.1, 5.3] suggest that “Suppliers should not impose any additional considerations with regard to intrinsic features against nuclear proliferation for signatories of Non Proliferation Treaty and relevant nuclear related international instruments.” Further on, “the supplier should design the nuclear energy system for safeguard friendliness to the current IAEA safeguards regime”.

With simplified design, longer refuelling interval, outsourced or factory refuelling and the “safeguards-by-design approach” [5.7] some of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 may offer increased safeguard friendliness and, perhaps, lower safeguards costs compared to NPPs with large reactors. However, larger number of smaller reactors needed to meet a given energy demand may result in an increased safeguards effort and costs. Further design-specific studies would be required to clarify this issue and, specifically, to rate its importance in terms of the overall costs associated with a small modular reactor project (as compared to a project of a NPP with large reactor).

5.11. Physical protection

Regarding physical protection, the considerations/requirements [5.1, 5.3] suggest that “the NPP design should incorporate technical features and provisions to protect against theft, sabotage and acts of terrorism through integration of plant arrangements and system configuration with plant security design, in accordance with international guidance, practices and User’s national regulations.”

In case of a multi-module SMR based plant meeting this requirement would pose no issue; however, for small NPPs located in remote and isolated areas physical protection could be a challenge, and more of a challenge than proliferation resistance. Partial solution here could be higher degree of the intrinsic security of such reactors [5.7, 5.15].

5.12 New developments regarding common user considerations for small and medium sized reactors

In 2012, the IAEA/INPRO has restarted its activities on common user considerations (CUC) for future nuclear energy systems, this time making a focus on small and medium sized reactors. The first meeting convened in October 2011 was deemed to formulate common considerations by users from developing countries regarding deliberately smaller reactors [5.5]. For this purpose, questionnaires have been developed and answers of the respondents – participants of the meeting from Albania, Cameroon, Croatia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Sudan, Tunisia and Vietnam have been summarized, see Fig. 5.2 – 5.4.

The competitive LUEC, total energy cost, overnight interest cost and industrialization and human resource development (in that order) were named as major drivers for small and medium sized reactor projects, see Fig. 5.2.

Fig. 5.2. Results of survey – Drivers for small and medium sized reactor projects in user countries [5.16].

Fig. 5.3. Results of survey – Impediments for small and medium sized reactor projects in user countries [5.16].

Fig. 5.4. Results of survey – Preferences of users for type of contract, technology transfer and support from system supplier [5.16]

The impediments for small and medium sized reactors appear to be (in that order) insufficient technology proveness, unresolved issues of spent fuel management13, insufficient political commitment/public acceptance, and concerns about safety, see Fig. 5.3.

The preferences of the users regarding type of contract, spectrum of technology transfer, and mode of support from the NPP supplier show a noticeable variation, see Fig. 5.4.

Support in the financing, fuel supply and licensing has a preference. Codes and methods, NPP license and know-how are the preferences for technology transfer. Finally, turnkey contract, contract for the construction of multiple plants, and BOO (Build-Own-Operate) contract are be the preferences regarding NPP deployment.

Preliminary conclusions of survey [5.5] do not contradict the considerations of references [5.1, 5.3]. However, the new study shows a higher degree of the diversity in demands, preferences and opinions.

5.12. Conclusions to Chapter 5

Analysis of the available documents on user considerations/requirements to small and medium sized reactors by developing countries shows that in most cases these requirements are favourable to the advanced design concepts of small modular reactors (SMRs) presented in Chapter 3.

Specifically, the SMRs could have no important issues in meeting the requirements for reactor type and capacity (although high temperature gas cooled reactors might not be a preference for developing countries), plant design, construction, operation and maintenance, decommissioning, nuclear safety and licensing, support from the vendor, and local participation and technology transfer.

Flexible multi-module plant configuration with small modular reactors could be essential to meet the demand of the users regarding plant capacity.

13 Actually, this may be common to all reactors, independent of their unit size.

User requirements by developing countries put an emphasis on NPPs for base load electricity production, also suggesting the NPPs should have the flexibility for non-electrical application, if required. The SMRs presented in Chapter 3 meet this user requirement perfectly.

In the addressed state-of-the-art user requirement documents there are no special requirements for increased manoeuvrability of smaller reactors (although such requirement was present in an earlier Indonesian set of user requirements).

Regarding vendor support in financing, the SMRs may offer substantial advantages owing to their smaller absolute capital outlay, scalability and reversibility of SMR projects, shorter construction periods and the resulting minimal financial risks.

Future technology transfer might be an easier task for SMRs as the sizes of their components are not huge and might better meet the capabilities of the evolving national industries in developing countries.

Being largely fabricated at a factory and delivered in factory assembled modules (which also could be disassembled easily), the SMRs could potentially offer many advantages in decommissioning.

The real challenge for the SMRs is to provide levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) competitive with that of the comparable base-load electricity generation sources in a user country. This requirement has a number one priority in all known user requirements by developing countries, and the challenge is to find the approaches that could combat the negative effects of the economy of scale typical of all SMRs. This challenge will be addressed further in Section 6.1 of Chapter 6.

Technology proveness requirements suggest that the plant should have a proven operation experience of 3-5 years. All SMRs presented in Chapter 3 provide for being deployed first in their countries of origin. However, such plants would need to operate for several years before being offered for export to developing countries.

Requirements to plant design suggest that the design of equipment and components should allow for the supply of their replacement during the life of the NPP by manufacturers other than the original manufacturers”. This may be an issue for SMRs, especially in the near-term, in view of diversity of the SMR design concepts and the unique technical features implemented in some of them.

The SMRs are not expected to have issues related to nuclear safety or licensing. However, some national regulations may be overly prescriptive and cautious about passive systems and novel technologies in general, as implemented in safety designs of some of such reactors. In all cases, early initiation of pre-licensing negotiations with the national regulatory authority would be helpful. In addition to this, a small-budget governmental programme to support national licensing of SMRs could be recommended. For the users, vendor support in licensing would be essential.

With simplified design, longer refuelling interval, outsourced or factory refuelling and the “safeguards-by-design approach” some of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 may offer increased safeguard friendliness and, perhaps, lower safeguards costs compared to NPPs with large reactors. However, larger number of smaller reactors needed to meet a given energy demand may result in an increased safeguards effort and costs. Further design-specific studies would be required to clarify this issue.

In case of a multi-module SMR based plant meeting the requirements of physical protection would pose no issue; however, for small NPPs located in remote and isolated areas physical protection could be a challenge, and more of a challenge than proliferation resistance. Partial solution here could be higher degree of the intrinsic security of such reactors.

References to Chapter 5

[5.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for Preparing User Requirements Documents for Small and Medium Reactors and their Application, IAEA-TECDOC-1167, Vienna (2000): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1167_prn.pdf

[5.2] Jupiter Sitorius Pane, “An Overview of Developing National Requirements for Proliferation Resistance Assessment of Nuclear Energy System including SM in Indonesia”, In: Materials of the IAEA Technical Meeting on Option to Incorporate Intrinsic Proliferation Feature to Nuclear Power Plants with Innovative Small and Medium sized Reactors (SMRs), 15-18 August 2011, Vienna,

Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Aug-15-18-SMR-TM/16-Aug-Tuesday/5_INDONESIA_Jupiter_PRPP-Policy.pdf

[5.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems: Report of Stage 1, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.1, Vienna (2009): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1380_web.pdf

[5.4] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO), Membership: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/membership.html

[5.5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Technical Cooperation Project INT/4/142: "Promoting Technology Development and Application of Future Nuclear Energy Systems in Developing Countries", INPRO Dialogue Forum on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors, 10–14 October 2011, IAEA, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/index.html

[5.6] Khali A. Yasso, Mostafa Aziz, “Perspectives on SMR Deployment in Egypt: Opportunities and Challenges”, In: Materials of the INPRO Dialogue Forum Workshop on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors, IAEA, Austria – Vienna, 10 – 14 October 2011: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/24.Yasso-and-Aziz-Egypt.pdf

[5.7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[5.8] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[5.9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[5.10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1399_web.pdf

[5.11] "Approaches to Assess Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors"/ V. Kuznetsov and N. Barkatullah. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Opportunities and Challenges for Water Cooled Reactors in the 21st Century, 27-30 October 2009, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Paper 1S01: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/topic1/1S01_V.%20Kuznetsov.pdf

[5.12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, IAEA Safety Standards: http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/default.asp?s=11&l=90

[5.13] United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web-site, Advanced Reactors: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced.html

[5.14] WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, “Utilities join Westinghouse SMR alliance”, Press release 18 May 2012: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Utilities_join_Westinghouse_SMR_alliance-1805124.html

[5.15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small Reactors without On-site Refuelling: Neutronic Characteristics, Emergency Planning and Development Scenarios, Final Report of an IAEA Coordinated Research Project, IAEA-TECDOC-1652, Vienna (2010): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1652_web.pdf

[5.16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Technical Cooperation Project INT/4/142: "Promoting Technology Development and Application of Future Nuclear Energy Systems in Developing Countries", INPRO Dialogue Forum on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User

Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors, 10–14 October 2011, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Questionnaire Results: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/Questionnaire-Results.pdf

6. BENEFITS AND ISSUES OF SMR DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES(Rev4- Complete, 21 June 2012)

6.1. Introduction to Chapter 6

In this Chapter, the SMR design concepts described in Chapter 3 are analyzed on key aspects of their deployment in developing countries, taking into account the considerations by technology holders and potential technology users as highlighted in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. The key issues addressed include economics (Section 6.2), investments (Section 6.3), infrastructure (Section 6.4) and potential markets (Section 6.5). Section 6.6 provides the conclusions to Chapter 6.

6.2. Economic perspective

A single key issue for SMR economics is lack of the economy of scale [6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5]. The conomy of scale equation is given by formula (6.1) [6.6]:

where Cost (P0) = Cost of power plant of unit capacity P0,

Cost (P1) = Cost of power plant for unit capacity P1,

n = Scaling factor, n=0.4-0.7.Equation (6.1) is valid if the design of a NPP is not changed in the variation of its output [6.4, 6.5]. According to it, the specific (per kW(e)) cost of a nuclear power plant of the same design increases with the decrease of the plant’s unit output. For example, a NPP of 200 MW(e), having the same design as a NPP of 1200 MW(e), will have the per kW(e) cost 2.4 times higher14. In this, the absolute cost of a 200 MW(e) plant would still be less than that of a 1200 MW(e) plant, by 2.5 times.As it was mentioned in Chapters 4 and 5, the levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) is rated as a principal indicator of NPP competitiveness by both technology holders and technology users, with the absolute capital (investment) cost going second to it.The typical LUEC formula appears as follows [6.4]:

where:Electricityt: The amount of electricity produced in year “t”;PElectricity: The constant price of electricity;(1+r)-t: The discount factor for year “t”;Investmentt: Investment cost in year “t”;O&Mt: Operations and maintenance cost in year “t”;Fuelt: Fuel cost in year “t”;Carbont: Carbon cost in year “t”;Decommissioningt: Decommissioning cost in year “t”.

In formula (6.2), investment costs15 include overnight construction costs as well as interest during construction [6.4]. The overnight construction costs include engineering-procurement-

14 Assuming n=0.51, which is the best estimate value recommended in [6.4], taking into account scaling factors for the direct and indirect plant costs.

15 Often referred to as capital costs.

construction costs, owner’s costs and contingency costs. Owner’s costs typically vary from 2 to 14%, contingency costs – from 0 to 13%, of the total investment cost [6.7, 6.8, 6.9]. With the owner’s and contingency costs being at the top, the plant having the same engineering-procurement-construction costs may, therefore, appear to be ~30% more expensive.A typical structure of LUEC for the currently operated newer NPPs is given in Table 6.1. The total investment cost leads, followed by operation and maintenance cost and fuel cost16. Because the typical lifetime of a modern NPP is 40-60 years, the decommissioning cost produces very little impact on LUEC. Thus, though this cost (and the required decommissioning effort) is important in the evaluation of a NPP design concept, its impact on LUEC could be neglected [6.4].

Table 6.1. Typical LUEC structure for currently operated NPPs [6.4].Discount rate 5% 10%

Total investment cost 58.6% 75.6%

O&M cost 25.2% 14.9%

Fuel cost 16.0% 9.5%

Decommissioning cost 0.3% 0.0%

For reasons highlighted above, the effort of SMR designers is, first of all, focused on finding the design and deployment approaches that could effectively combat the negative impact of the economy of scale as defined by formula (6.1) [6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5]. In this, the two major directions of SMR designers’ efforts are being observed:

Direct competition in LUEC with the state-of-the-art reactors of large capacity, which is a challenging task;

Restricting the application of SMRs to those locations where large reactors for whatever reason cannot be deployed, for example, to off-grid locations in remote areas or to regions of a country where the demand and grid capacity are small, or where small capacity networks for non-electrical applications are already available, see Section 6.5.

Apart from the economy of scale there are several other factors related to NPP design and deployment that are important for the overall economy of a SMR. These factors, which could at least partially outweigh the missing economy of scale in the investment cost, are highlighted in detail in references [6.4, 6.5]. Fig. 6.1 gives a generic illustration of possible impact of such factors.Major factors that tend to decrease the investment cost of SMRs are as follows [6.4]:

(1) Construction duration

Reduction of the construction duration reduces IDC and could significantly reduce the investment component of LUEC, see formula (6.1). Owing to high degree of factory fabrication, many SMRs could offer shorter construction times (see Chapter 3) which could potentially reduce the investment costs by up to 20% compared to the case when the construction time is the same as for present day large reactors.

16 Actually, fuel cycle costs.

0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500Plant Capacity (Mwe)

5

Construct Schedule

2

3

4

Multiple Unit

Learning Curve

Unit Timing

6 Plant Design

Economy of Scale

1

Present Value Capital Cost

“SMR Concept”

(5) Unit Timing – Gradual capacity additions to fit demand

Cos

t per

Kw

e

(1) Economy of Scale- Assumes single unit and same LR design concept (large plant directly scaled down)

(2) Multiple Units – Cost savings for multiple units at same site

(3) Learning – Cost reductions for site & program learning for additional units in series

(6) Plant Design – Cost reductions resulting from design concept characteristics

(4) Construction Schedule – Reduced IDC from shorter construction time

Fig. 6.1. Generic interpretation of factors affecting comparative capital costs of SMRs and large reactors (Westinghouse Electric Company, USA) [6.10].

(2) First-of-a-kind factors, economy of subsequent units on the site and economy of multi-module plants

When several unites are being build on the same site (“concentrated” deployment), some costs related to common facilities on the plant site could be shared, resulting in smaller effective investment costs for each unit. The same applies to a single multi-module plant. When plants of the same design are being sequentially built on the site, the effects of “learning” are observed related to both, on-site construction and serial factory fabrication of the components. Learning effects could be observed when subsequent plants are being built on different but similar sites. However, learning effects could be essentially nullified or even reversed when the design of a subsequent plant is changed, when the regulations are changed between subsequent plant builds or when the interval between two subsequent plant builds is too long. Moreover, learning effects do not apply when a subsequent unit is being built in another country. Under favourable conditions, the resulting effect of the above mentioned factors could be a 20-25% reduction in SMR investment cost against the economy of scale curve. The “ball” is typically with multi-module SMR based plants or twin units in concentrated deployment.

(3) Economy of subsequent factory fabricated units

For SMR plants fully produced at a factory (e.g., the Russian barge mounted plants), a smaller amount of construction related actions is required on the site. Such plants could benefit from learning in continuous factory production, see Fig. 6.2. The overall effect in capital cost reduction after the first 5-6 units may reach 30 - 40%. However, even a short, single-year interruption in factory production may depreciate this effect substantially (ibidem).Many SMRs presented in Chapter 3 employ a high degree of factory pre-fabrication so, the above mentioned effect would be applicable to them, at least, partially. For learning in factory fabrication, it is important that the effect would not depend on a country in which the plant is going to be deployed.

Plant capacity, MW(e)

Cos

t per

kW

(e)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

Number in a series

Cos

ts, r

el. u

nits

At least 15% for the second-of-a-kind plant- costs of pre-production activities, tool fabrication and techno-logy development not included

At least 5% for each nth-of-a-kind plant- "learning", i.e., improvement of technology and tooling, and purposeful measures for cost reduction

Stabilization range

Fig. 6.2. Reduction of equipment fabrication and installation costs in serial production of nuclear propulsion plants [6.11].

(4) Design simplification

All of the PWR type SMRs presented in Chapter 3 implement certain design simplifications compared to large reactors belonging to the same technology line. This brings such SMRs ~15% down on the economy of scale curve, contributing to a reduction in the investment cost.Fig. 6.1 indicates unit timing might be an important factor of benefit for the SMRs which, different from large reactors, could be deployed more in line with the demand growth curve. This issue appears important for a number of developing countries which currently have grids and spinning reserve capacities not matching large unit outputs offered by the off the shelf large reactors [6.12, 6.13]. Should such large reactors be deployed in such countries immediately, they might have to operate at a fraction of their rated output, which would increase the “present” investment cost proportionally. Regarding O&M and fuel costs of SMRs, reference [6.4] notes the following:

“The SMR vendors often indicate the O&M costs could be lower than in present day large reactors due to a stronger reliance of SMR on the inherent and passive safety features, resulting in simpler design and operation”;

“Regarding the fuel costs, the SMR generally offer lower degree of fuel utilization compared to the state-of-the art large reactors, mainly because of the poor neutron economy due to a smaller reactor core. Lower degree of fuel utilization results in a higher fuel cost, which is most sharply manifested for small reactors with long refuelling interval”.

“The combined share of O&M and fuel cost in the LUEC is expected to be smaller in the case of the SMR than for large reactors, because the specific capital investment is higher for the SMR”.

All in all, reference [6.4] concludes that the sum of O&M and fuel costs for SMRs could be roughly taken equal to the corresponding sum for large capacity reactors belonging to the same

technology line. Although disputable, this conclusion is supported by the designers’ data on cost components (ibidem).The decommissioning cost could be relatively small for the SMRs of PWR type presented in Chapter 3 because of their smaller size which, in view of a high degree of factory pre-fabrication and modularity, would allow for easy disconnection and removal of the reactor modules designed to be transportable by rail, truck or barge.According to reference [6.4], “NPP operation in a co-generation mode with co-production of heat or desalinated water can potentially lead to a significant additional revenue or credit expressed in a currency unit per MWh. For some SMR designs operating in a co-generation mode the values of LUEC could be in this way improved by about 20-30%”. Through the analysis of possible combined action of all of the above mentioned factors for particular SMR based NPP configurations reference [6.4] concludes that the investment component of the LUEC for a SMR could be at best 10-40% higher than in the case of a NPP with a large reactor.Reference [6.10] based on independent analysis concludes that the investment component of the LUEC for a certain SMR based NPP configuration and deployment approach, could be as low as only 4% higher than in the case of a NPP with a large reactor. In both of the above mentioned studies, concentrated deployment of SMRs and/or twin unit or multi-module plant configurations are shown to yield the lowest predicted investment costs.References [6.4] and [6.10] indicate that making a SMR direcly competitive to a large reactor is a challenge which can be potentially resolved only for the case of concentrated SMR deployment, i.e, when several SMR based plants, preferebly, multi-module or twin-unit plants are being sequentially deployed on a single site or on several very similar sites following a carefully optimized deployment schedule.Analysis of the options to achieve SMR costs competitive to those of large reactors cannot be complete without taking into account the following additional considerations:

(1) Delays in construction schedules and budget overruns

Delays in the construction and budget overruns have become a common point for the majority of large NPP construction projects worldwide [6.14]17, see Fig. 6.3. At the same time, references [6.4, 6.5] note that recent deployments of the smaller Canadian CANDU6 and Indian PHWR reactors were accomplished out in line with the originally defined schedule and within the originally allotted budget. Should the SMRs described in Chapter 3 be able to break the tendency of construction schedule delays and budget overruns observed for large capacity reactors, this would give such SMRs a fore in economic competitiveness against large reactors.

17 For Japanese ABWR of 1350 MW(e), a stably short construction schedule of 3 years has been achieved in Japan in the pre-Fukushima-1 years [6.15]. However, it is not clear whether such experience could be reproduced in export deployment of the same reactor.

3004

2063 2063

759

957

1250

438

1636

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

South Texas 3&4 (U.S.)1) 2)

Olkiluoto 3 (Finland)1)

Flamanville 3 (France)1) 3)

U.S.A. average (1966-78)2)

+32%

+61% +21%

+216%

3,961

3,313

2,500 2,396

1) Estimates, project in progress (South Texas construction not started yet)2) In EUR (conversion date May 20, 2010)3) Initial overnight estimate 2005; cost update 2008

Fig. 6.3. Cost overruns of selected nuclear new build projects (as of June 2010) [6.14, 6.16].

(2) General tendency of per kW cost increase in nuclear power

Examples are known when the effects of the economy of scale have been observed. Those include, for example, massive French NPP build in 1980s [6.4] and deployments of Indian PHWRs of progressively higher capacity [6.17]. However, the overall longer term trend in nuclear power is indicative of the continued increase of the specific, per kW costs of NPPs [6.14], see Fig. 6.4. Reference [6.14] mentions continuosly increased technical complexity of larger and larger economy-of-scale nuclear reactors and regulatory ratcheting following major accidents on large NPPs as possible reasons for this tendency. The SMR design concepts presented in Chapter 3 promise to offer increased simplicity of the design and operation, do not require unit size and design complexity increase to achieve a large overall plant capacity (which is achieved by adding the same reactor modules or building the same additional NPPs on the same site) and rely broadly on the inherent and passive safety features. Therefore, such reactors might have a potential to break the tendency shown in Fig. 6.4. However, to prove that they are able to do so, they will have to be mass deployed and operated first, which at the moment appears to be a challenge of its own.Finally, reference [6.4] notes that the NPPs indigenously produced in those developing or transitional countries where the purchasing power of hard currency is substantially higher compared to developed countries would have a lower cost in hard currency compared to similar NPPs produced in developed countries. The known example is India where the domestically made PHWRs are sold at 1700-1800 US$/kW(e), going across any economy of scale considerations when compared to similar-output Canadian CANDU reactors [6.4]. Similar, although different in scale, considerations are likely to apply to NPPs indigenously produced in China, Argentina and the Republic of Korea.The effects of different purchsing power parity are difficult to quantify, since the designs indigenously developed in different countries are typically different. However, moving the

production of certain SMR components to those countries where the purchasing power of hard currency is high, might contribute to additional reduction of SMR costs.

10,000

5,000

2,000

1,000

500

25,000

15,000

10,000

7,500

5,000

20,000

FF98

/kW

Aver

age

and

min

/max

inve

stm

ent c

osts

(200

4 U.S

. dol

lars

/kW

) 1990

19961985

19801975

1972

1999

19901985

19801977

1 5 10 20 50 100

Fig. 6.4. Average and min/max reactor construction costs for US and France versus cumulative capacity [6.14, 6.18].

Table 6.2. presents the designers’ cost data for near-term SMRs of Chapter 3. In the end of this table, given are the projections for nuclear generation costs with large reactors in several countries. Table 6.2 data indicates a noticeable spread in projected nuclear generation costs with different large reactors in different coutries. However, if SMRs are compared to large reactors in the same country, it could be noted that, for example, the designers of small barge monted plants in Russia and a small land based plant in the Republic of Korea target higher LUEC values that those achieved with large reactors in their corresponding countries. The designers are not afraid of higher LUEC for SMRs because they know that even at this level of LUEC there could be multiple applications of such reactors in their home countries, see the discussion in Section 6.5. However, the designers of multi module SMR plants in the USA, as well as the designers of larger SMRs in Russia, apparently target direct competition with large state-of-the-art LWRs.

Table 6.2. Cost data for near term deployment SMR of Chapter 3 (OECD-NEA data [6.4] in 2009 US$)*

SMR (Country) Unit power,MW(e)

Overnight capital cost, US$/kW(e)

LUEC18

US$ cent/kWh

Levelized heat costUS$/GCal

Levelized desalinated water costUS$ cent/m3

PWRKLT-40S (Russia)

35 3700-4200 barge

4.9-5.3 21-23 85-95

ABV (Russia) 8.5 9100 barge ≤12 ≤45 ≤160VBER-300twin-unit (Russia)

325 2800 barge3500 land

3.3 barge3.5 land

18 n/a

RITM-200 (Russia)

50 3300-3800 icebreaker

n/a - -

CAREM-25 (Argentina)

27 3600 ~4.2 at 8% DR

n/a 81 at 8% DR

SMART (Republic of Korea)

100 4970 6 n/a 70

Westinghouse SMR (USA)

225 2970** Like in state-of-the-art LWR

n/a n/a

mPower (USA)twin unit

180 (per module)

2970** -“- n/a n/a

NuScale (USA)12 module plant

45 (per module)

2970** -“- n/a n/a

HI-SMUR (USA)single or multi-module plant

145 (per module)

2970** -“- n/a n/a

HTGRHTR-PM (China)

105 (per module)

<1500 5.1 n/a n/a

OECD-NEA projections for large LWRs [6.19]VVER-1150 (Russia)

1070 2933 4.35 n/a n/a

APR-1400 (Republic of Korea)

1343 1556 2.91 n/a n/a

APWR, ABWR (USA)

1400 2970 4.82 n/a n/a

EPR (France) 1630 3860 5.64 n/a n/aABWR (Japan) 1330 3009 4.97 n/a n/a

18 At a 5% discount rate (by default).

* DR – discount rate; LWR – light water reactor; barge – barge mounted; land – land based (default, if not specified).** - Assumed equal to APWR, ABWR(USA)

6.3. Investment perspective

While bringing the specific, per kW(e) investment costs of a SMR based plant to the level typical of the state-of-the-art NPPs with large reactors appears to be a challenge (see the discussion in Section 6.1), the absolute overnight capital costs of small reactors are much smaller compared to those of NPPs with large reactors, see Table 6.3.As it can be seen from Table 6.3, the overnight capital costs of typical configurations of Generation III and III+ large plants are within the range of 6.28 – 8.3 US$ billion for the range of overall plant capacities from 1630 to 2800 MW(e). For the near term SMRs from Chapter 3 the corresponding cost range could be from 0.097 to 2.275 US$ billion for plant capacity range from 27 to 650 MW(e). In this, for the plants below 300 MW(e) the overnight capital costs are below US$ 1 billion.

Table 6.3. Overninght capital costs for SMRs of Chapter 3 (OECD-NEA data [6.4] in 2009 US$)*

SMR (Country) Unit power,MW(e)

Plant configuration

NPP power, MW(e)

Overnight capital cost, US$ billion

PWRKLT-40S (Russia) 35 Twin unit, barge 70 0.259 – 0.294ABV (Russia) 8.5 Twin unit, barge 17 0.155VBER-300 (Russia) 325 Single unit, barge

Twin unit, land325650

0.910 barge2.275 land

RITM-200 (Russia) 50 Twin unit, icebreaker

100 0.231 – 0.262 icebreaker

CAREM-25 (Argentina)

27 Single unit 27 0.097

SMART (Republic of Korea)

100 Single unit 100 0.497

Westinghouse SMR (USA)

225 Per unit** 225 0.668 Per unit**

mPower (USA) 180 (per module)

Twin unit 360 1.07**

NuScale (USA) 45 (per module)

12-module 540 1.600**

HI-SMUR (USA) 145 Single unit 145 0.431

HTGRHTR-PM (China) 105.5 (per

module)Twin unit 211 <0.317

OECD-NEA projections for large LWRs [6.19]VVER-1150 (Russia) 1070 Twin unit 2140 6.276APR-1400 (Republic of Korea)

1343 Twin unit 2686 4.180

APWR, ABWR (USA)

1400 Twin unit 2800 8.316

EPR (France) 1630 Single unit 1630 6.292ABWR (Japan) 1330 Twin unit 2660 8.002* LWR – light water reactor; barge – barge mounted; land – land based (default, if not specified).** - Plant configuration not defined

Small absolute overnight capital costs make the SMRs attractive to a broader range of investors, including a variety of private companies (not necessarily affiliated with nuclear sector) and the utilities whose own funds are insufficient to finance a large reactor project. Bulding partnerships for SMRs with utilities and industrial enterprises has become a sign of times in the USA (see Section 3.2). In the case of the US NuScale, the Fluor Company which is a partner to NuScale Power is known to provide a direct financing for design development and licensing of the NuScale SMR project [6.20]. In the Russian Federation, a public-private joint venture company named “AKME Engineering” drives forward the project of the SVBR-100 reactor expected to be constructed by 2017 [6.21]. “AKME Engineering” is a joint venture of the “Evrosibenergo” JSC (a non-nuclear company) and the “Roatom” State Atomic Energy Corporation. Within this partnership, financing is provided exclusively by the “Evrosibenergo”, while the “Rosatom” contributes its intellectual property and workforce and facilities to carry out design development and licensing of the SVBR-100. Reference [6.4] notes that “projects with small capital outlay are typically more attractive to private investors operating in liberalized markets where the figures of merit are the net present value (NPV19) and the internal rate of return (IRR20) rather than the levelized unit product cost assuming the certainty of the production costs and the stability of the product prices.” Following on the results of reference [6.10] (see Section 6.1), reference [6.22] concludes that the NPV and IRR for SMR based projects could be made competitive to those of a large reactor based NPP, again for certain SMR based plant configurations and the deployment approach based on incremental capacity increase. Further on, regarding incremental capacity increase through NPPs with SMRs as compared to a single large reactor based NPP project reference [6.22] notes:

Lower capital investment profile for SMR and an option of partial financing of the later units at the expense of profits gained from putting into operation the previous ones;

Smoother debt stock profile, indicating a less tight financial distress of the project. Interest during construction could be as low as about the half of a large reactor based project (based on the considered scenario assumptions);

That more staggered construction of SMRs increases self-financing, reduces the up-front equity investment and, under certain conditions, may be affordable to a broader number of investors;

That excessively staggered construction of SMRs delays full site power availability to the grid and shifts the cash inflows forward, decreasing both NPV and IRR.

Figures 6.5 and 6.6 provide a generic illustration of the studies carried out by authors of reference [6.22].

19 The net present value (NPV) of a time series of cash flows, both incoming and outgoing, is defined as the sum of the present values (PVs) of the individual cash flows. Each cash inflow/outflow is discounted back to its present value (PV). Then they are summed [6.4].20 The internal rate of return (IRR) on an investment or project is the annualized effective compounded return rate or discount rate that makes the net present value of all cash flows (both positive and negative) from a particular investment equal to zero [6.4].

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13LR

SMR #1SMR #2SMR #3SMR #4

CUMULATED CASH FLOW TO THE FIRM

-5.000

-3.000

-1.000

1.000

3.000

5.000

7.000

9.000

11.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

years

SMRs LR

Fig. 6.5. Construction schedules (top) and cumulative cash flows for the case of a staggered build of 4 SMRs of 300 MW(e) capacity each versus one large reactor of

the overall capacity of 1200 MW(e) [6.22].

Sources of financing for SMRs construction (M€)

020

4060

80100

120

140160

180200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

years

Self-financing equity debt

Fig. 6.6. Sources of SMR financing for the case shown in Fig. 6.5 [6.22].

Cash flow assessment, such as shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6, as well the assessment of the financing indices, such as NPV, IRR and payback time, and their sensitivity to boundary conditions help understand the benefits of SMRs related to the small capital outlay of a single project, incremental capacity increase with SMRs and lower financial risks related to better SMR project tolerance to changing market conditions. It should be noted that performance of such assessment, along with the assessment of LUEC, is already prescribed by the SMR user

Cumulative cash flow (M€)

requirements document adopted by Indonesia (see Chapter 5). Relevant requirements in application to a NPP project in general are adopted in several other developing countries, including Mexico [6.23].

6.4. Infrastructure perspective

To start a nuclear power programme the country needs a national infrastructure for nuclear power. The infrastructure could be developed in different ways and within different timeframes but the state-of-the-art recommendations are to acquire it in full prior to the start-up of operation of a nuclear power plant. For example, the IAEA’s document “Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power” [6.24] identifies 19 issues to be addressed in developing the infrastructure, see Table 6.4, and recommends the approach to developing it as shown in Fig. 6.7. According to this approach, the country starting from a scratch may need 10-15 years to develop national infrastructure prior to putting its first NPP into operation.

Table 6.4. Infrastructure issues and milestones [6.24]

ISSUES MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 3

National position

Nuclear safety

Management

Funding and financing

Legislative framework

Safeguards

Regulatory framework

Radiation protection

Electrical grid

Human resources development

Stakeholder involvement

Site and supporting facilities

Environmental protection

Emergency planning

Security and physical protection

Nuclear fuel cycle

Radioactive waste

Industrial involvement

Procurement

Following the recommendations of [6.24] there would be no difference in basic infrastructure requirements for a SMR or a large reactor based programme, i.e., it is suggested that all 19 issues identified in Table 6.4 are addressed. However, the scope of work and the required effort (and associated costs) might be somewhat different for the SMR based programme, and these differences are summarized in brief below.

CON

DITI

ON

S

CON

DITI

ON

S

CON

DITI

ON

S

Preparing for assuming commitments & obligations

Infr

astr

uctu

re d

evel

opm

ent

prog

ram

1st

. NPP

Pro

ject

Commissioning

Operation / decommissioning

Nuclear power option included within the

national energy strategy

10 – 15 years

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 1

MILESTONE 1 Ready to make a

knowledgeable commitment to a nuclear programme

MILESTONE 2 Ready to invite bids

for the first NPP

MILESTONE 3 Ready to commission and

operate the first NPP

Feasibility study Bidding process

Pre project Project decision making Construction

Considerations before a decision to launch a nuclear power programme is taken

Preparatory work for the construction of a NPP after a policy decision has been taken

Activities to implement a first NPP

Maintenance and continuous infrastructure improvement

Fig. 6.7. Milestones approach in the development of a national infrastructure for nuclear power [6.24].

The immediate infrastructure related consideration is that infrastructure development cost and effort could be more justified for a larger first NPP than for a SMR. However, the situation here is not so simple. First of all, the infrastructure is emplaced for many future NPPs, be they large reactors or SMRs, depending on the country needs. Second, small reactor does not necessarily means small capacity power station, as many SMRs provide for flexible-capacity multi module plant configurations or, alternatively, several SMR based plants could be built on one site. Third, even if SMR deployment is distributed, the overall number of planned SMRs may be quite significant.What is even more important, many developing countries see national infrastructure for nuclear power as the additional benefit from nuclear power programme, since infrastructure means competence, qualified human resource, enhanced national capability, benefits for national industry and new workplaces. Namely for this reason IAEA energy planning studies involving nuclear option never take into account nuclear infrastructure development costs, see [6.25] as an example.If physical infrastructure (e.g., research reactors) is not involved, the infrastructure development cost is typically within the range of several hundreds US$ million and is partly shared by plant vendor or vendor country who are typically leaders in the provision of infrastructure support to a country – recipient of their NPP. Salary level in developing countries is relatively low, if expressed in hard currency, and there is even a tendency to welcome overstaffing as, for example, noted in reference [6.26].Regarding nuclear safety, regulations and emergency planning, the designers of all near term SMRs target to license their first-of-a-kind plants according to the licensing norms, rules and procedures currently adopted in the country of origin, see the discussion is Chapter 4. This provides a synergy with many developing countries in technology user and newcomer categories, since the designers are well aware of the IAEA safety standards [6.27], which are based on best practices achieved worldwide, while many developing countries use the IAEA safety standards as basis for their national regulations.However, the designers of many SMRs target reduced or completely eliminated off-site emergency planning measures referring to high level of safety of their designs as supported by

many accident sequences eliminated or de-rated at the design level, with broad incorporation of inherent, passive and engineered safety features. Smaller emergency planning zone radius cuts upfront costs for building additional roads and bridges that may otherwise be needed to assure smooth evacuation or relocation of population, as well as relevant insurance premiums for the population living the vicinity of the plant [6.3, 6.28].IAEA safety standard [6.29] does not include particular details on how reduced emergency planning could be justified, and the practices in countries vary. For example, in Russia there are provisions to justify reduced emergency planning requirements, and for the barge-mounted mounted plant with the two KLT-40S reactors a 1 km exclusion zone has been justified with no relocation measures required at any distance from the plant in all emergencies [6.28]. In Argentina they have risk-informed regulations, see Fig. 6.8, which allow for emergency planning size determination on a case by case basis. In other countries the requirements vary, but often a certain radius of the emergency planning zone (e.g., 10, 20 or 30 km around the plant) is prescribed by national regulations, independent of the plant type and capacity [6.4]. In such cases, particular time will be needed to develop and emplace amendments to the regulatory norms that would make it possible for SMRs to benefit from reduced emergency planning requirements.

Fig. 6.8. Acceptance criteria for design extension conditions in Argentina [6.30]

Regarding proliferation resistance, an immediate consideration is that multiplicity of SMRs would require more safeguards effort and increase safeguards costs. However, safeguards costs give a negligible contribution to LUEC unless there is a need to stop the plant for non-compliance reasons, and then the contribution would become quite significant. SMRs are not different from large reactors in this respect, and the more so as many SMR designers pursue a safeguards-by-design approach to simplify plant verification and reduce the required safeguards effort [6.2, 6.3].Security and physical protection issues of a multi-module SMR based plant of large overall capacity will not be much different from that of a NPP with a single large reactor. However, security and physical protection may be an issue for a small plant located in a remote isolated area. In some countries, security staffing requirements are independent of plant capacity which may lead to situations when NPP security staff will be comparable to the population of a small settlement to which the plant caters. Smaller salary and the need to overcome unemployment in developing countries might help make this issue somewhat less urgent [6.3].

Regarding industrial involvement, smaller size of the components and simpler balance of plant design (based essentially on the off-the-shelf components) of some SMRs might eventually facilitate larger national industry involvement in a recipient country, also contributing to cost reduction, see the discussion in Section 6.2.As comes to funding and financing, owing to smaller capital outlay and smaller financial risks of SMR it might be easier to attract a larger number of investors, including private investors previously not associated with nuclear industry, see Section 6.2. For factory assembled transportable SMR based nuclear power plants, such as Russian barge mounted plants (see Chapter 3), an attractive option of payment upon delivery is possible, when prior to plant transportation the amount due is deposited in a reliable bank in a third-party country and then transferred to the supplier’s account when plant is successfully delivered to the operation site.Incremental capacity increase with SMRs naturally leaves more time for, and allows to streamline better human resource development. Optimization of deployment schedule could be performed in this respect to provide for training of workers and operational staff at already deployed and operated NPP units.Regarding stability of electrical grids the rule of thumb for a power plant is to have capacity not exceeding roughly 10% of the overall grid capacity. If plant capacity exceeds this value, it may evoke grid instability and blackouts [6.31]. The required spinning reserve for the periods of scheduled NPP shut downs would also be smaller for SMRs as even with multi-module plants planned shut downs of individual modules (e.g., for refuelling) could be scheduled for different period of time. Regarding nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste, factory fuelled and refuelled transportable reactors may offer substantial advantages to their users by completely outsourcing all operations with nuclear fuel and, as an option, high level radioactive waste, to the supplier. Should such option become available, the scope of necessary infrastructure for nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste in the user country could be substantially reduced to dealing with intermediate and low level waste.However, to be viable export transactions with factory fuelled and refuelled transportable reactors would need a resolution of a number of important legal and institutional issues [6.32], specifically as transportation roots for such reactors may pass through territories and territorial waters of third-party countries. International commitments of countries, such as under the Convention on Nuclear Safety [6.33], Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage [6.34], Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material [6.35] , Maritime [6.36] and other codes would need to be observed and, therefore, mechanisms for passing on the liabilities and responsibilities under these conventions and codes from one party to another during plant transportation would need to be developed by all involved parties and, most probably, agreed upon with the international community [6.32].Specifically, factory fuelled reactor in transportation might be rated as an operable reactor, and then new safety rules and regulations for nuclear safety and radiation protection in transportation of an operable reactor would need to be developed and emplaced. Otherwise, such reactor could be rated as a fuel pack, and then the existing rather strict safety rules for transportation of fuel packs would need to be observed [6.37].Foreseeing the difficulties on this way, the designers of most of the SMRs presently consider on-site fuelling/refuelling for their reactors21, be it once-at-a-time whole core refuelling performed by a dedicated vendor’s team (see Chapter 3), which is different from mid-1990s and early 2000s when many SMR concepts were designed for factory fuelling and refuelling. However, an option of factory fuelling is still being considered as possible future option for some of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3.

21 It should be noted that of the Russian barge-mounted plants only the ABV reactor based plant employs factory fuelled/refuelled reactors. Plants with the KLT-40S and VBER-300 reactors provide for on-site fuelling/refuelling with fresh and spent fuel transportation apart from the reactor, similar to presently operated conventional reactors.

As comes to regulatory framework, the basic requirement is that responsibility for NPP licensing rests with the country where the reactor will be built and operated and such responsibility cannot be outsourced [6.24]. This is a common rule for all NPPs independent of their design and capacity.Future developments, such as international design certification may hypothetically pave the way to international licensing and deployment of SMR; however, such a perspective currently appears remote currently.

6.5. Market perspective

As it has been shown in Section 6.3, achieving LUEC competitive to large reactors with a SMR based plant is challenging but potentially manageable task, its resolution being associated with serial factory fabrication, multi-module SMR based plants and incremental capacity increase. Should such plants appear and their competitiveness be proven, the markets for them would be the same as for NPPs with large reactors and perhaps wider, owing to more attractive investment profile and lower financial risks related to better scalability and reversibility of SMR based projects.However, time would be required to solve the above mentioned challenging task. At the moment, all of the known more developed SMR projects, including those in the licensing or at the construction stage, appear to be more expensive per kW(e) when compared large reactor projects in the same country [6.4] (difference among countries may be favourable to the SMRs if they are produced in a country with higher purchasing power of hard currency and compared to large reactors produced in a country where the purchasing power is lower, see Table 6.3 in Section 6.3). At the same time, reference [6.19] points to the fact that even within the same country (be it a developing or a developed country) LUEC is typically different for different energy technologies and may differ also for the same technologies applied in different circumstances (region of the country, site, electrical grids in particular region, ownership, pre-history of the project, applications, e.g., electricity or electricity and heat, etc.). This leaves more of a room for competition of SMRs as they are known today (with LUEC higher than that for large reactors).Reference [6.4] presents rather conservative independent LUEC estimates for some PWR type SMRs and compares them to costs of large NPPs and non-nuclear energy sources in different countries and regions around the world. Fig. 6.9 illustrates the results of such comparison for a 10% discount rate, which is more typical of regulated energy markets. The SMRs considered in [6.4] reflect SMR development status in 2010. Some of them resemble the reactors presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of Chapter 3, for others plant configuration and/or unit output have been changed.Fig. 6.9 shows there are many opportunities for competitive deployment of presently-known higher LUEC SMRs in on-grid locations worldwide. Actually, all plants except the Russian barge-mounted plants of 16 and 70 MW(e) may find their “on-the-grid” niches in competition with other energy sources in particular regions worldwide.Specifically, reference [6.4] mentions “SMRs could be a competitive replacement for the decommissioned small and medium sized fossil fuel plants, as well as an alternative to the newly planned such plants, in the cases when certain siting restrictions exist (such as limited free capacity of the grid, limited spinning reserve, and/or limited supply of water for cooling towers of a power plant). The SMR (like nuclear in general) could be more competitive if carbon taxes are emplaced.” It is also noted that at 10% discount rate some twin-unit or multi module plants with SMRs may become competitive with large reactor based NPPs in some regions of the world, see Fig. 6.9.For small and very small reactors, such as Russian barge-mounted plants with the KLT-40S and the ABV reactors (see Chapter 3), reference [6.4] suggests many potential niche markets in off-grid locations. As an example, Fig. 6.10 shows a map of electricity tariffs in the Russian Federation.

C

Wind...

Nu

Gas

C

Wind...

2×

1×

2×

4×

N. America

Europe

Asia Pacific

SMR (P

WR)

0 100 200 300 400USD/MWh

Fig. 6.9 Regional ranges for LUEC and estimated values of the SMR LUEC (at a 10% discount rate) [6.4]

In regions toward Russia’s North and Far East the electricity tariffs are so high that practically all SMRs shown in Table 6.2 of Section 6.3 could be competitive there.However, such off-grid locations are characterized by specific climatic and siting conditions which give a preference to those SMRs that could operate with small grids or no grid at all; that have simplified operation and maintenance and staffing requirements; that exclude the need of frequent fuel delivery to the hard-to-access remote sites, that could be relocated once the point where energy is needed changes (e.g., a mine depletes), that co-produce heat for residential heating or industrial applications, which is as much a need as electricity in these particular locations [6.4]. Based on such requirements, Russian barge mounted (aka “floating”) co-generation NPPs may be a perfect near-term choice.Reference [6.4] also finds a number of other niche markets for very small transportable NPPs, including those in the North of Canada (similar to the Russian North and Far East), as well as small islands in Indonesia and remote draught areas in India. As it has already been mentioned in Section 2.2, Indonesia has recently carried out a pre-feasibility study on SMR option for electricity and potable water production in Bangka-Belitung Islands Province located to the east of the lower Sumatera Island. The study included least cost analysis for different energy options, as well as siting and technology assessment.

Fig. 6.10 Map of electricity tariffs (in US$ cent per kWh) in the Russian Federation in 2010 [6.4], based on data from reference[6.38].

The conclusion of the least cost analysis is that 100 MW(e) class SMRs could be an optimum solution after 2027, but only if their specific capital cost is not higher than 4000 US$/kW(e). [6.39]. Per se, this is a very strict requirement, particularly in view of recent reevaluation of the capital costs of GW(e) class light water reactors in the USA [6.40]. This re-evaluation gives the average value of 4210 US$ per kW(e), which means that at least the US made SMRs would need to be more economical than the state-of-the-art GW(e) class light water reactors. SMRs produced in countries with higher purchasing power of hard currency could then have an advantage regarding possible deployment in Indonesia. In Mongolia, small or medium sized NPPs are being considered for their potential to meet many of the country’s energy needs. The country has a population of 2.775 million sparsely spread across the territory of 1.564 million square km. A pre-feasibility study carried out recently indicates a potential for medium sized (300 - 700 MW(e)) reactors in the Southern (Gobi) region, along with the potential for small, 100-200 MW(e) capacity reactors in the Western region of Mongolia [6.41]. Based on references [6.13, 6.42], it could be noted that presently, most of the developing countries consider proven state-of-the-art NPPs with large, GW(e) class reactors as their first, and often only, choice. Few countries, like Indonesia and Mongolia, are undertaking more or less serious feasibility studies on SMRs reactors. Others remain indifferent to SMRs. The apparent reason for this is absence of operation proveness of small modular reactors. Be such reactors available and proven in operation in their countries of origin, the choices of many developing countries might be different, but before this happens it makes little sense to build independent projections of SMR deployment potential.Strengthening the restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions may add competitiveness to nuclear option in general and SMRs in particular [6.4, 6.19]. Although no consensus on further steps to reduce such emissions has been reached, many developed and developing countries actively pursue an increased contribution of the renewable energy sources to their national energy mixes [6.19]. Renewable energy sources are characterized by higher electric output variability depending on daily or seasonal changes of the environment (presence of sunlight, wind or availability of biomass, etc.). In conjunction with this, options are being explored to improve the performance

of such systems by combining them with SMRs. An example of such combination is shown in Fig. 6.11 taken from reference [6.43]. According to the authors of this reference, adding an array of SMRs to the array of, say, off-shore wind turbines and providing dynamic energy switching22 for SMRs and energy storage capacity for all energy sources in the system may help balance the overall system’s variability. The authors of [6.43] conclude that SMRs can play a stabilizing role in a grid with large share of renewable sources and contribute in reducing the overall cost of a low carbon energy supply in developed and developing countries alike.

New transmission (AC or DC)

BatchThermalProcess

Overflow wind power ►

Includes dynamic energy switching between electrical, thermal, and energy storage

Distribution orTransmissionGrid

1,000 MWe CapacityOff-Shore Wind Turbines

2 MW x 100

2 MW x 100

2 MW x 100

2 MW x 100

2 MW x 100

Node

DynamicEnergy

SwitchingSMR

Plug-in Single or Modular SMRs(100-700 MWe)

+NSSS

◄ SMR Electricity SMR Heat ►

SMR Energy ▼ Storage

Compressed Air Storage

Storage Returns ▲

Bulk Product

Desalinated water, biomass

torrefaction

Fig. 6.11. Hybrid system with wind turbines, SMRs and non-electrical applications [6.43].

Finally, reference [6.44] argues that for developing economies affordability is most important and, therefore, it is capital cost of an energy system that is the parameter of prime importance (and not the commonly accepted generation cost or LUEC). Such a shift in priorities is not immediately recognized by developing countries (see the discussion in Chapter 5) but might be very attractive to many private investors (see Section 6.4). Further investigations and a dialogue among all interested stakeholders are needed to clarify on this point.

6.6. Conclusion to Chapter 6

In this Chapter, the SMR design concepts described in Chapter 3 are analyzed on key aspects of their potential deployment in developing countries, including economics, investments, infrastructure and potential markets. Regarding economics, the levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) is rated as a principal indicator of NPP competitiveness by both, technology holders and potential technology users. The capital (investment) cost of a NPP is rated second to it.A single key issue for SMR economics is lack of a positive impact from the economy of scale. The specific (per kW(e)) cost of a nuclear power plant of the same design increases with the decrease of the plant’s unit output. The corresponding effect for a single SMR may reach a factor of 2.5 and beyond if compared to the reactor of large capacity.Total investment cost which includes interest during construction makes the largest contribution to LUEC, followed by operation and maintenance cost and fuel cost. Because of the discounting applied in LUEC and as the typical lifetime of a modern NPP is 40-60 years, the decommissioning cost produces very little impact on LUEC and can be neglected in comparative economic analysis.

22 Dynamic switching between electricity generation and stored non-electrical product production rates.

The effort of SMR designers is, first of all, focused on finding the design and deployment approaches that could effectively combat the negative impact of the economy of scale in investment costs. Such approaches include:

Reduced construction duration, contributing to a reduced interest during construction; Economy of subsequent units on the site and economy of multi-module plants,

incorporating the economy of shared on-site facilities and the effects of accelerated learning in on-site construction;

Economy of subsequent factory fabricated units, incorporating the effects of learning in factory production which are independent of a country in which the NPP will be deployed;

Design simplification, directly contributing to investment cost reduction; NPP operation in a co-generation mode with co-production of heat or desalinated water,

which can potentially lead to a significant additional revenue or credit expressed in a currency unit per MWh, and

Unit timing, when SMRs are deployed more accurately in line with actual demand growth curve.

Regarding the operation and maintenance and fuel costs, the available information indicates that for a SMR their sum is roughly equal to the corresponding sum for a large reactor belonging to the same technology line. Typically, fuel costs are somewhat higher, and operation and maintenance costs are somewhat lower for a SMR, if compared to a large reactor.Through the analysis of possible combined action of all of the above mentioned factors for particular SMR based NPP configurations the available references conclude that the investment component of LUEC for a SMR could not be less than 1.04 - 1.10 of that for a large reactor.The available references also indicate that making a SMR directly competitive to a large reactor can potentially be achieved only for the case of concentrated SMR deployment, i.e., when several SMR based plants, preferably, multi-module or twin-unit based plants are being sequentially deployed on a single site or on several very similar sites following a carefully optimized deployment schedule.Analysis of the options to achieve SMR costs competitive to those of large reactors cannot be complete without taking into account a consideration of the delays in construction schedules and budget overruns which have become a common point for the majority of large NPP construction projects worldwide. Should the SMRs described in Chapter 3 be able to break this tendency, that could give them a fore in economic competitiveness against large reactors.Some references also point to the observed long term tendency of per kW cost increase in nuclear power, owing to continuously increased technical complexity of larger economy-of-scale nuclear reactors and the regulatory ratcheting following major accidents on large NPPs. The SMR design concepts presented in Chapter 3 offer increased simplicity of the design and operation, do not require unit size and design complexity increase to achieve a large overall plant capacity and rely broadly on the inherent and passive safety features. Therefore, such reactors might have a potential to break the above mentioned tendency, which would eventually contribute to enhancement of their competitiveness.The available data indicates a noticeable spread in projected nuclear generation costs with different reactors in different countries. One of the reasons for this could be different purchasing power of hard currency in different countries. In this, NPPs indigenously produced in those developing or transitional countries where the purchasing power of hard currency is substantially higher compared to developed countries would have a lower cost in hard currency compared to similar NPPs produced in developed countries. In view of this, moving the production of certain SMR components to those countries where the purchasing power of hard currency is high might contribute to substantial reduction of the SMR investment costs.Regarding near term SMRs presented in Chapter 3, two major directions of SMR designers’ efforts are being observed:

Direct competition in LUEC with the state-of-the-art reactors of large capacity;

Restricting the application of SMRs to those locations where large reactors for whatever reason cannot be deployed, for example, to off-grid locations in remote areas or to regions of a country where the demand and grid capacity are small, or where small capacity networks for non-electrical applications are already available.

In the second of these cases, the designers are not afraid of higher LUEC for SMRs because they know that even at this level of LUEC there could be multiple applications of such reactors in their home countries (this would be discussed further in Section 6.5).However, the designers of multi module SMR plants in the USA, as well as the designers of larger SMRs in Russia, apparently target direct competition with large state-of-the-art LWRs. Achieving such a competition may be a challenge; however, the results of the performed survey indicate such a challenge could potentially be overcome by some small modular reactor design concepts presented in Chapter 3.Regarding the investments, it is noted that the absolute capital cost of SMRs is always much smaller compared to that of large reactors. Specifically, for the plants range below 300 MW(e) the overnight capital costs are below US$ 1 billion.Projects with small capital outlay are typically more attractive to private investors operating in liberalized markets where the figures of merit are the net present value (NPV ) and the internal rate of return (IRR ) rather than the levelized unit product cost assuming the certainty of the production costs and the stability of the product prices.Some references suggest that the NPV and IRR for SMR based projects could be made competitive to those of a large reactor based NPP, for certain SMR based plant configurations and the deployment approach based on incremental capacity increase. Further on, regarding incremental capacity increase through NPPs with SMRs it is noted that lower capital investment profile for SMR and an option of partial financing of the later units at the expense of profits gained from putting into operation the previous ones may potentially attract a broader number of investors, including utilities and, potentially, international financial institutions who have no sufficient own funds to finance large capacity nuclear reactor projects. Incremental capacity increase with SMRs also results in a smoother debt stock profile, indicating a less tight financial distress of the project. For particular scenarios of SMR deployment interest during construction could be as low as about the half of a large reactor based project.Assessment of the financing indices, such as NPV, IRR and payback time, and their sensitivity to boundary conditions helps understand the benefits of SMRs related to the small capital outlay of a single SMR project, incremental capacity increase with SMRs, and lower financial risks related to better SMR project tolerance to changing market conditions. Being important to many potential investors, such an approach is already an established practice in some developing countries and could be recommended to all others.The state-of-the-art international recommendation is that a country planning to embark on a nuclear power programme needs to acquire national infrastructure for such a programme in full prior to the start-up of operation of a nuclear power plant. Reference [6.24] identifies 19 issues to be addressed in developing the infrastructure and suggests that the country starting from a scratch may need 10-15 years to develop national infrastructure prior to putting its first NPP into operation.There is no difference in basic infrastructure requirements for a SMR or a large reactor based programme. The responsibility for NPP licensing rests with the country where the reactor will be built and operated and such responsibility cannot be outsourcedGenerally, SMRs may comply well with the requirements to national infrastructure of nuclear power and in some areas they may offer certain benefits to a developing country and certain advantages related to the required infrastructure effort and costs.Many developing countries see national infrastructure for nuclear power as the additional benefit from nuclear power programme, since infrastructure means competence, qualified human resource, enhanced national capability, benefits for national industry and new workplaces.

Regarding nuclear safety, regulations and emergency planning, the designers of all near term SMRs target to license their first-of-a-kind plants according to the licensing norms, rules and procedures currently adopted in the country of origin. This provides a synergy with many developing countries in technology user and newcomer categories, since they use or plant to use the IAEA safety standards as basis for their national regulations.At the same time, the designers of many SMRs target reduced or completely eliminated off-site emergency planning measures referring to high level of safety of their designs as justified by many accident sequences eliminated or de-rated at the design level. In some countries, provisions for justification of such a reduction (which would also reduce costs of a SMR based project) exist, while in others they still need to be emplaced, which would require particular time.Regarding proliferation resistance, the required safeguards cost and effort might be higher for SMRs, owing to their multiplicity. However, safeguards costs give a negligible contribution to LUEC and many SMR designers pursue a safeguards-by-design approach to simplify plant verification and reduce the required safeguards effort.Security and physical protection issues of a multi-module SMR based plant of large overall capacity will not be much different from that of a NPP with a single large reactor. However, those may become an issue for a small plant located in a remote isolated area. Smaller size of the components and simpler balance of plant design of some SMRs might eventually facilitate larger national industry involvement in a recipient country.Incremental capacity increase with SMRs naturally leaves more time for, and allows to better streamline human resource development. SMRs better comply with the requirements of small electrical grids and may save the country’s effort needed to implement larger electrical grids and larger spinning reserve capacity required for NPPs with large reactors.Some SMRs may perform as full factory assembled factory fuelled/refuelled reactors which would offer their users significant advantages related to all operations with nuclear fuel and, as an option, high level radioactive waste being outsourced to the supplier. In this case, the scope of necessary infrastructure for nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste in the user country could be substantially reduced.However, export transactions with such reactors would require resolving a number of important legal and institutional issues related to countries’ commitments under international legal arrangements. Foreseeing the difficulties on this way, the designers of most of the near term SMRs consider on-site fuelling/refuelling for their reactors, be it once-at-a-time whole core refuelling performed by a dedicated vendor’s team.Achieving LUEC competitive to large reactors with a SMR based plant is challenging but potentially manageable task, its resolution being associated with serial factory fabrication, multi-module SMR based plants and incremental capacity increase. Should such plants appear and prove to be competitive, the markets for them would be the same as for NPPs with large reactors and perhaps wider, owing to more attractive investment profile and lower financial risks. Solving this task may, however, require time.At present, all of the known more developed SMRs appear to be more expensive per kW(e) when compared to large reactor projects in the same country. However, even within the same country LUEC is typically different for different energy technologies and, de facto, there are many opportunities for competitive deployment of presently-known higher LUEC SMRs in on-grid locations worldwide. All plants except the very small Russian barge-mounted plants may find their “on-the-grid” niches in competition with certain other energy sources in particular locations around the world.As an example, SMRs could be deployed to replace the decommissioned small sized fossil fuel plants in the cases when certain siting restrictions exist, e.g., limited free capacity of the grid or limited supply of water on the site. Like nuclear in general, SMRs become more competitive if carbon taxes are emplaced. At a 10% discount rate some multi-module plants with SMRs may even compete with large reactors in particular regions of the world.

On the other hand, very small higher LUEC SMRs could be competitive in off-grid locations, such as remote hard-to-access or draught areas or small islands. Such locations typically have very specific climatic and siting conditions, and candidate SMRs should match these conditions in full to be deployable. For example, regarding Russian North and Far East, the barge mounted co-generation NPPs appear to be a perfect near-term choice.Presently, most of the developing countries consider proven state-of-the-art NPPs with large, GW(e) class reactors as preference. Indonesia and Mongolia are undertaking feasibility studies on SMRs, while most of the others remain indifferent. The reason for this is absence of operation proveness of small modular reactors. Be such reactors available and proven in operation in their countries of origin, the choices of many developing countries might be different.Following global effort of climate change mitigation many developed and developing countries pursue a larger share of renewable energy sources in their national energy mixes. Such sources are characterized by higher electric output variability and some studies indicate SMRs can play a stabilizing role in a grid with large share of renewable sources and contribute in reducing the overall cost of a low carbon energy supply. Finally, there are arguments that for developing economies energy system affordability is most important and, therefore, capital costs of energy systems should stand above LUEC or generation costs in relevant economic assessments. Further investigations and a dialogue among all interested stakeholders may help clarify on this point.

References to Chapter 6[6.1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Innovative Small and Medium Sized

Reactors: Design Features, Safety Approaches and R&D Trends, Final Report of a Technical Meeting Held in Vienna, 7-11 June 2004, IAEA-TECDOC-1451, Vienna (2005): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1451_web.pdf

[6.2] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs 2005: Reactors with Conventional Refuelling Schemes, IAEA-TECDOC-1485, Vienna (2006): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1485_web.pdf

[6.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Small Reactor Designs without On-site Refuelling, IAEA-TECDOC-1536, Vienna (2007): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1536_web.pdf

[6.4] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[6.5] "Approaches to Assess Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors"/ V. Kuznetsov and N. Barkatullah. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Opportunities and Challenges for Water Cooled Reactors in the 21st Century, 27-30 October 2009, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Paper 1S01: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/topic1/1S01_V.%20Kuznetsov.pdf

[6.6] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Reduction of Capital Costs of Nuclear Power Plants, OECD PUBLICATIONS, Paris (2000)

[6.7] University of Chicago (August 2004), “The Economic Future of Nuclear Power, A Study Conducted at the University of Chicago”: http://ebookee.org/The-Economic-Future-Of-Nuclear-Power-A-Study-Conducted-At-The-University-Of-Chicago_510977.html

[6.8] Florida Power & Light Company’s Petition to Determine Need for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 Electrical Power Plant, before the Florida Public Service Commission. Direct

Testimony and Exhibits of: Steven D. Scroggs, 16 October 2007. Document No: 09467: http://www.psc.state.fl.us/library/filings/07/09443-07/09443-07.pdf

[6.9] Kozlov, V.V. (2004), “Determination of Highest Possible Capital Costs for Construction of a Nuclear Power Plant Based on Data from Construction Abroad”, Atomic Energy, Vol. 97, No. 5: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8731jg782t56172/

[6.10] M.D. Carelli, B. Petrovic, C.W. Mycoff, “Economic Comparison of Different Size Nuclear Reactors”, In: Proceedings of the 2007 LAS/ANS Symposium on CD ROM, Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 1-5 July 2007, p. 653-662: http://www.las-ans.org.br/Papers%202007/pdfs/Paper062.pdf

[6.11] Mitenkov, F.M., Averbakh, B.A., Antiufeeva, I.N., Gureeva, L.V., Conceptual Analysis of Commercial Production Experience and Influence of Main Factors on the Economy of a Propulsion Nuclear Plant Lifecycle (Proceedings from the 2nd International Scientific and Technical Conference – Energy Strategy 2004 Power Development Planning: Methodology, Software, Applications, October 25-27, 2004, Moscow).

[6.12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Evaluation of Human Resource Needs for a New Nuclear Power Plant: Armenian Case Study, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1656, Vienna (2011): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1656_Web.pdf

[6.13] Khali A. Yasso, Mostafa Aziz, “Perspectives on SMR Deployment in Egypt: Opportunities and Challenges”, In: Materials of the INPRO Dialogue Forum Workshop on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors, IAEA, Austria – Vienna, 10 – 14 October 2011: http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/24.Yasso-and-Aziz-Egypt.pdf

[6.14] Ioannis N. Kessides, “The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered: Risks, Uncertainties, and Continued Promise”, Science Direct, Elsevier B. V., JEPO-D-12-00425R1 (2012)

[6.15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS): http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

[6.16] Arthur D Little. 2010. “Nuclear New Build Unveiled: Managing the Complexity Challenge.” http://www.adl.com/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_Nuclear_New_Build_Unveiled.pdf

[6.17] Indrani Bagchi, “India Can Now Build Cheaper Nuclear Reactors than Almost Anyone, Outgoing DAE Chief Says”, The Times of India, 1 May 2012: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-can-now-build-cheaper-nuclear-reactors-than-almost-anyone-outgoing-DAE-chief-says/articleshow/12943970.cms

[6.18] Grubler, A. 2010. “The Costs of the French Nuclear Scale-Up: A Case of Negative Learning by Doing.” Energy Policy 38: 5175-5188.

[6.19] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2010 Edition: http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/

[6.20] UxC Policy Watch, 10 May 2012, “U.S. Government Support for Small Modular Reactors” http://www.uxc.com/products/uxc_pw_updatelist.aspx

[6.21] AKME Engineering Web-site: http://www.akmeengineering.com/aboutus.html[6.22] Boarin, S. and M. Ricotti (2009), “Cost Profitability Analysis of Modular SMRs in

Different Deployment Scenarios”, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE 17), Brussels, Belgium, Paper ICONE17-75741.

[6.23] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Common User Considerations (CUC) by Developing Countries for Future Nuclear Energy Systems: Report of Stage 1, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.1, Vienna (2009): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1380_web.pdf

[6.24] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1, Vienna (2007): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1305_web.pdf

1.1 [6.25] H‐Holger Rogner, “Energy Planning and Application to Nuclear Power”, Presentation at 2nd Regional Conference on Energy and Nuclear Power in Africa organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in cooperation with the Department of Energy, South-Africa, 30 May - 1 June 2011, Cape Town, South-Africa: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Infrastructure/meetings/2011-May-Africa/EnergyPlanningApplications-H.Rogner-IAEA.pdf

[6.26] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidance for Preparing User Requirements Documents for Small and Medium Reactors and their Application, IAEA-TECDOC-1167, Vienna (2000): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1167_prn.pdf

[6.27] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety Standards Web-page: http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/default.asp?s=11&l=90

[6.28] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, Vienna (2009): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1399_web.pdf

[6.29] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety of Nuclear power Plants: Design, IAEA Safety Standards Series: Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/1, Vienna (2012): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1534_web.pdf

[6.30] AUTORIDAD REGULATORIA NUCLEAR, Criterios radiológicos relativos a accidentes en reactores nucleares de potencia, Norma 3.1.3., Revisión 2, Argentina (2002).

[6.31] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Introducing Nuclear Power Plants Into Electrical Power Systems of Limited Capacity, IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 271, Vienna (1987): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TRS1/TRS271_Web.pdf

[6.32] V. Kuznetsov, “Major Findings of IAEA/INPRO Activity on Legal and Institutional Issues of Transportable Nuclear Power Plants”, Presentation at the Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security Using NPPs Based on SMRs, 3-6 October 2011, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/2-Tuesday/8_IAEA_INPRO_TNPP_Kuznetsov_TM3-4Oct2011.pdf

[6.33] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Convention on Nuclear Safety, IAEA Publications: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/nuclearsafety.html

[6.34] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, IAEA INFCIRC/500, 20 March 1996: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1996/inf500.shtml

[6.35] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, IAEA Publications: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/cppnm.html

[6.36] INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION, Publications, Codes: http://www.imo.org/Publications/Pages/CatalogueAndBookCodeLists.aspx

[6.37] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 1996 Edition (Revised), IAEA Safety Standards Series No. TS-R-1, Vienna (2000): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1098_scr.pdf

[6.38] Order #216-e/2 of the Russian Federal Tariff Service (22 September 2009): http://www.fstrf.ru/tariffs/info_tarif/electro/0

[6.39] Syahril, JMC Johari, Sunarko, “Prospects of SMRs in Indonesia’s Energy System”, In: Materials of IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, 3 - 6 October 2011, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria:

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/2-Tuesday/9_INDONESIA_BATAN_Sunarko_TM3-4Oct2011.pdf

[6.40] ENERGY POLICY INSTITURE OF CHICAGO, Analysis of GW-scale Overnight Capital Costs, Technical Paper, The University of Chicago, November 2011: https://epic.sites.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/EPICOvernightCostReportFinalcopy.pdf

[6.41] Tudev Tserenpurev, Gun-Aajav Manlaijav, “Strategies and Future Development of Energy and Current Status of Nuclear Energy Program in Mongolia”, In: Materials of IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, 3 - 6 October 2011, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/3-Wednesday/5_MONGOLIA_Tsuren_TM3-6Oct2011.pdf

1.2 [6.42] Materials of IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, 3 - 6 October 2011, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Technology/Meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM.html

[6.43] D. Shropshire, “Potential Strategies for Utilizing SMRs for Combined-Heat-And-Power Production”, In: Materials of IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, 3 - 6 October 2011, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/1-Monday/4_EC-JRC_Shropshire_TM_SMR_3-6Oct2011-2.pdf

[6.44] R. Sollychin, “The NEOP Approach – Ensuring Relevance of Nuclear Technology to the Emerging Users”, In: Materials of IAEA Technical Meeting on Options to Enhance Energy Supply Security using NPPs based on SMRs, 3 - 6 October 2011, IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, Austria: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-Oct-3-6-SMR-TM/2-Tuesday/6_IAEA_NFW_Sollychin_NEOP_TM3-4Oct2011.pdf

7. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR SMR DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Rev0 (25 June 2012)

Based on major finding and conclusions of the previous chapters, this chapter provides a summary of opportunities and challenges for SMR deployment in developing countries, and also highlights pathways for the resolution of the identified challenges and issues.

7.1. Opportunities for SMRs

The information on design status and deployment potential of small reactors presented in Chapter 3 indicates that by or around 2020, i.e., in the near term, about 11 SMRs developed in Argentina, China, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and USA could be deployed as first-of-a-kind plants in their countries of origin. In case of success, these reactors could later be considered for export to developing countries starting from the first half of 2020s.

The above mentioned SMRs include land based as well as barge mounted (Russian only) plants. Unit power varies from 8.5 to 300 MW(e) with twin-unit or multi-module plant option provided in the majority of cases. The fact that the reactors are small does not mean the overall capacity of a power station with such reactors needs to be small. Actually, it could be as large as that of a power plant with large nuclear reactors, although achieved in smaller increments.

Analysis of the available documents on user considerations/requirements to small and medium sized reactors by developing countries shows that these requirements are generally favourable to SMRs listed in Chapter 3.

It is important that all near term SMRs target licensing and deployment of first-of-a-kind plants and the subsequent units within their respective countries of origin, to meet certain domestic energy needs. Such situation is in good synergy with the user requirements of developing countries, which require NPPs to be licensed and operated first in the country of origin, gaining the operation experience of 3-5 years for several units.

The SMRs are unlikely to have any important issues in meeting the requirements for reactor type and capacity (although high temperature gas cooled reactors might not be an immediate preference for most of developing countries), plant design, construction, operation and maintenance, decommissioning, nuclear safety and licensing, support from the vendor, and local participation and technology transfer. Flexible multi-module plant configuration with small modular reactors could be essential to meet the demand of particular users regarding nuclear power station capacity.

Specifically, first-of-a-kinds of all near term SMRs would be, or are being licensed according to the currently emplaced regulatory norms and practices in their countries of origin. This provides a synergy with many developing countries in the technology user and newcomer categories that use or will use IAEA safety standards as basis for their national regulations. For barge mounted plants, however, special siting and safety norms would need to be developed and emplaced with vendor country support.

The SMRs presented in Chapter 3 “respond” to lessons of the 9/11 and the Fukushima-Daiichi disasters by moving the nuclear islands underground and/or surrounding the reactor vessels or small containments with water, as well as by exploiting higher potential of SMRs for passive decay heat removal to achieve grace periods of 72 hours and beyond and eliminate the need for continuous emergency electrical supply on the site.

Regarding economics, the levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) is rated as a principal indicator of NPP competitiveness by both, technology holders and potential technology users. The capital (investment) cost of a NPP is rated second to it.

The designers’ strategies regarding SMR economics are:

Direct competition in LUEC with the state-of-the-art reactors of large capacity (pursued strongly by the US designers);

Restricting the application of SMRs to those locations where large reactors for whatever reason cannot be deployed, for example, to off-grid locations in remote areas or to regions of a country where the demand and grid capacity are small, or where small capacity networks are readily available.

The key issue for SMR economics is lack of a positive impact from the economies of scale. Therefore, achieving LUEC competitive to large reactors with a SMR based plant is a challenge. On the positive side, this challenging task might have a solution, inter alia, associated with serial factory fabrication, multi-module SMR based plants and incremental capacity increase [7.1], see Section 7.2. Should SMR based plants with competitive LUEC appear, the markets for them would be the same as for NPPs with large reactors and perhaps wider, owing to more attractive investment profile and lower financial risks. Solving this task would, however, require particular time.

Those designers who pursue the second of the above mentioned strategies are “not afraid” of higher LUEC for SMRs because they know that even at this level of LUEC there could be multiple applications of such reactors in their home countries and, potentially, abroad. This standpoint is backed by the fact that even within the same country (be it a developing or a developed country) LUEC is typically different for different energy technologies and may differ also for the same technologies applied in different circumstances [7.2]. The latter leaves a room for competition of SMRs as they are known today, i.e., with LUEC higher than that for large reactors.

For example, SMRs could be deployed to replace the decommissioned small sized fossil fuel plants in the cases when certain siting restrictions exist, e.g., limited free capacity of the grid or limited supply of water on the site. Like nuclear in general, SMRs become more competitive if carbon taxes are emplaced. At a 10% discount rate some multi-module plants with SMRs may even compete with large reactors in particular regions of the world [7.1].

As another example, very small higher LUEC SMRs could be competitive in off-grid locations, such as remote hard-to-access or draught areas or small islands. Such locations typically have very specific climatic and siting conditions, and candidate SMRs should match these conditions in full to be deployable. [7.1] For example, regarding Russian North and Far East, the barge mounted co-generation NPPs appear to be a perfect near-term choice.

User requirements by developing countries put an emphasis on NPPs for base load electricity production, also suggesting the NPPs should have the flexibility for non-electrical application, if required. The near term SMRs presented in Chapter 3 meet this user requirement perfectly.

All SMRs will provide for the implementation of the established safeguards verification procedures under the agreements of member states with the IAEA. In addition to this, with simplified design, longer refuelling interval, outsourced or factory refuelling and the “safeguards-by-design approach” some of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3 may offer increased safeguard friendliness and, perhaps, lower safeguards costs compared to NPPs with large reactors.

Regarding physical protection, the SMR designers put a larger emphasis on the intrinsic security as provided by design features complicating the access to nuclear fuel during reactor operation. Broader reliance on inherent and passive safety features also contributes to enhanced security as

it helps eliminate or de-rate some accidents that otherwise might be initiated by malevolent human actions.

Fuel cycle is typically once-through for the near term SMRs, although in Russia they consider implementing a closed fuel cycle to recover plutonium for feeding the commercial fast reactors.

Regarding waste management and environmental impacts, the SMR designers argue that smaller number and less complex design of systems and components as well as long refueling intervals would contribute effectively to minimization of waste and will further reduce the adverse environmental and health impacts.

Finally, an incentive to use SMRs to expand future carbon free (aka clean) energy is strong in many countries around the world. Following global effort of climate change mitigation many developed and developing countries pursue a larger share of renewable energy sources in their national energy mixes. Such sources are characterized by higher electric output variability and some studies indicate SMRs can play a stabilizing role in a grid with large share of renewable sources and contribute in reducing the overall cost of a low carbon energy supply.

The state-of-the-art international recommendation is that a country planning to embark on a nuclear power programme needs to acquire national infrastructure for such a programme in full prior to the start-up of operation of a nuclear power plant. Reference [7.3] identifies 19 issues to be addressed in developing the infrastructure and suggests that the country starting from a scratch may need 10-15 years to develop national infrastructure prior to putting its first NPP into operation.

There is no difference in basic infrastructure requirements for a SMR or a large reactor based programme. The responsibility for NPP licensing rests with the country where the reactor will be built and operated and such responsibility cannot be outsourced.

SMRs generally comply well with the requirements to national infrastructure for nuclear power and in some areas they may offer to a developing country certain benefits advantages related to minimization of the required infrastructure effort and costs.

Many developing countries see national infrastructure for nuclear power as an additional benefit from nuclear power programme, since infrastructure means competence, qualified human resource, enhanced national capability, benefits for national industry and new workplaces.

SMRs better comply with the requirements of small electrical grids and may save the country’s effort needed to implement larger electrical grids and larger spinning reserve capacity required for NPPs with large reactors.

Incremental capacity increase with SMRs naturally leaves more time for, and allows to better streamline human resource development.

Smaller size of the components and simpler balance of plant design of some SMRs might eventually facilitate larger national industry involvement in a recipient country.

Regarding financing, SMRs may offer substantial advantages owing to their smaller absolute capital outlay, better scalability and reversibility of SMR projects, shorter construction periods and the resulting minimal financial risks. It is noted that the absolute capital cost of SMRs is always much smaller compared to that of large reactors. Specifically, for the plants in the range below 300 MW(e) the overnight capital costs are below US$ 1 billion.

Projects with small capital outlay are typically more attractive to private investors operating in liberalized markets where indices like the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR) and the payback time are more important than LUEC. Incremental capacity increase with SMRs results in a smoother debt stock profile, indicating a less tight financial distress of the project. For particular scenarios of SMR deployment interest during construction could be as low as about the half of a large reactor based project.

Assessment of the NPV, IRR and payback time helps better understand the benefits of SMR based projects. Being important to many potential investors, such an approach is already an established practice in some developing countries and could be recommended to all others.

Some SMRs may perform as factory fuelled/refuelled reactors which would offer their users significant advantages related to all operations with nuclear fuel and, as an option, high level radioactive waste being outsourced to the supplier. In this case, the scope of necessary infrastructure effort for nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste in the user country could be substantially reduced.

7.2. Challenges and issues for SMR

The generally acknowledged challenge for SMRs is to provide LUEC competitive to that of the comparable base-load electricity generation sources in a user country. This requirement has a number one priority in all known user requirements by developing countries. SMR economics is known to have no positive impact from the economies of scale. According to the conomy of scale law, the specific (per kW(e)) cost of a nuclear power plant of the same design increases with the decrease of the plant’s unit output. The corresponding effect for a single SMR may reach a factor of 2.5 and beyond if compared to the reactor of large capacity.

In line with the above mentioned, the effort of SMR designers is, first of all, focused on finding the design and deployment approaches that could effectively combat the negative impact of the economies of scale in investment costs. Such approaches include:

Reduced construction duration, contributing to a reduced interest during construction;

Economy of subsequent units on the site and economy of multi-module plants, incorporating the economy of shared on-site facilities and the effects of accelerated learning in on-site construction;

Economy of subsequent factory fabricated units, incorporating the effects of learning in factory production which are independent of a country in which the NPP will be deployed;

Design simplification, directly contributing to capital cost reduction;

NPP operation in a co-generation mode with co-production of heat or desalinated water, etc. which can potentially lead to a significant additional revenue or credit expressed in a currency unit per MWh, and

Unit timing, when SMRs are deployed more accurately in line with actual demand growth curve.

As it has already been noted in Section 7.1, the designers’ strategies regarding SMR economics are:

Direct competition in LUEC with the state-of-the-art reactors of large capacity;

Restricting the application of SMRs to those locations where large reactors for whatever reason cannot be deployed.

Regarding the first strategy, the available references (e.g., references [7.1, 7.4]) conclude that through the analysis of possible combined action of all of the above mentioned approaches the investment component of LUEC for particular SMR based plants could not be less than 1.04 - 1.40 of that for a large reactor [7.1]. It is also concluded that making a SMR directly competitive to a large reactor can potentially be achieved only for the case of concentrated SMR deployment,

i.e., when several SMR based plants, preferably, multi-module or twin-unit based plants are being sequentially deployed on a single site or on several very similar sites following a carefully optimized deployment schedule. All in all, the issue of making a SMR based plant directly competitive to a NPP with large reactor remains unresolved and further investigations and, what is more important, practical demonstration of viability of relevant SMR options would be needed to resolve it. Of course, this will require additional time compared to that needed to deploy first-of-a-kind units of the SMRs presented in Chapter 3.

Regarding the second strategy, Section 6.5 of Chapter 6 and Section 7.1 point to many opportunities for competitive deployment of presently-known higher LUEC SMRs in on-grid and off-grid locations worldwide and explain why SMRs could be competitive in these niche markets.

In addition to what is mentioned above, there are arguments that for developing economies energy system affordability is most important and, therefore, capital (investment) costs of energy systems should stand above LUEC or generation costs in relevant economic assessments. Such a shift in the priorities of economic assessment is not immediately recognized by developing countries but might be supported by many private investors. Further investigations and a dialogue among all interested stakeholders may help clarify on this proposal.

Apart from the mentioned above economic challenge, SMRs may face some issues regarding their deployment in developing countries which could result in delays in implementation of the relevant projects but, in most cases, are not showstoppers because pathways for their resolution are known. Such potential issues are as follows:

Proven technology requirements by developing countries suggest that several units of the plant should have a proven operation experience of 3-5 years. All SMRs presented in Chapter 3 provide for being deployed first in their countries of origin. However, such plants would need to operate for several years before being offered for export to developing countries.

Requirements to plant design suggest that the design of equipment and components should allow for the supply of their replacement during the life of the NPP by manufacturers other than the original manufacturers. This may be an issue for SMRs, especially in the near-term, in view of diversity of the SMR design concepts and the unique technical features implemented in some of them.

Designers of many SMRs target reduced or completely eliminated off-site emergency planning measures referring to high level of safety of their designs as justified by many accident sequences eliminated or de-rated at the design level. In some countries, provisions for justification of such a reduction (which would also reduce costs of a SMR based project) exist, while in others they still need to be emplaced, which would require particular time.

For small NPPs located in remote and isolated areas physical protection could be a challenge. Partial solution here could be higher degree of intrinsic security of such reactors.

As it has been noted in Section 7.1, factory fuelled/refuelled reactors could substantially reduce the required infrastructure effort in a recipient country regarding nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste. However, export transactions with such reactors would require resolving a number of important legal and institutional issues related to countries’ commitments under international legal arrangements.

References to Chapter 7

[7.1] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Development, June 2011: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-smallreactors.pdf

[7.2] INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2010 Edition: http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/

[7.3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1, Vienna (2007): http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1305_web.pdf

[7.4] Carelli, M., P. Garrone, G. Locatelli, M. Mancini, C. Mycoff, P. Trucco, and M. Ricotti. 2010. “Economic Features of Integral, Modular, Small-to-medium Size Reactors.” Progress in Nuclear Energy 52: 403-414.

8. CONCLUSION

(Rev0, 26 June 2012)

Basic conclusions of the paper are as follows:

(1) Future deployment of small modular reactors in developing countries is conditioned by a success in licensing, deployment and operation of such reactors first in their countries of origin. User requirements of developing countries require all nuclear power plants (NPPs) to be licensed and operated first in the country of origin or elsewhere, gaining the operation experience of 3-5 years for several units at a reasonably high load factor.

(2) The information on design status and deployment potential of small reactors presented in this paper indicates that by or around 2020, i.e., in the near term, about 11 SMRs developed in Argentina, China, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and USA could be deployed as first-of-a-kind plants in their countries of origin. These SMRs include 10 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and one indirect cycle high temparture gas cooled reactor (HTGR).

The SMRs in PWR group are CAREM-25 of 27 MW(e)23 developed in Argentina, SMART of 100 MW(e) developed in the Republic of Korea, KLT-40S of 38.5 MW(e), ABV of 8.5 MW(e) and RITM-200 of 50 MW(e) developed in the Russian Federation, VBER-300 of 325 MW(e) developed jointly by Kazakhstan and the Russian Fedaration, Westinghouse SMR of 225 MW(e), mPower of 180 MW(e), NuScale of 48 MW(e) and HI-SMUR of 145 MW(e) developed in the USA.

The indirect cycle HTGR is HTR-PM of 105.5 MW(e) developed in China.

The Russian KLT-40S is a twin unit barge mounted plant. The Russian ABV is a twin unit barge mounted or land based plant. The VBER-300 is a single or twin unit land based plant or a single-unit barge mounted plant. The Russian RITM-200 will be first deployed as a icebreaker propuslion reactor and later considered for new-generation barge mounted or land based NPPs. Other SMRs are land based plants.

The fact that the reactors are small does not mean the overall capacity of a power station with such reactors needs to be small. Actually, it could be as large as that of a power plant with large nuclear reactors, although achieved in smaller increments - most of the designs provide for twin unit NPPs, Chinese design provides for two- or three-module plant configuration, all US designs additionally provide for flexible multi module NPP configuration, and in any case several SMRs could be built on one site.

CAREM-25 and SMART are in the licensing process. HTR-PM has been licensed and construction related actions have been initiated on the site in China. KLT-40S based barge mounted plant is being finalized in construction in the Russian Federation, its deployment being scheduled for 2014. RITM-200, ABV, VBER-300 and NuScale have reached detailed design stages. For other SMRs design development is progressing rapidly.

(3) SMR designers/vendors foresee that first-of-a-kind and the subsequent units of their respective plants will be deployed in their respective countries of origin to meet energy demand in a variety of domestic niche markets. In case of success these reactors could later be considered for export to developing countries, starting from the first half of 2020s.

23 Here and after, for a single module.

(4) SMRs comply well with the requirements to national infrastructure for nuclear power and in some areas they may offer a developing country certain benefits and advantages related to minimization of the required infrastructure effort and costs. For example:

SMRs better comply with the requirements of small electrical grids and may save the country’s effort to implement larger electrical grids and larger spinning reserve capacity needed for NPPs with large reactors;

Incremental capacity increase with SMRs naturally leaves more time for, and allows to better streamline human resource development;

Smaller size of the components and simpler balance of plant design of some SMRs might eventually facilitate larger national industry involvement in a recipient country.

Some SMRs may perform as factory fuelled/refuelled reactors with all operations with nuclear fuel being outsourced to the supplier. In this case, the scope of necessary infrastructure effort for nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste in the user country could be substantially reduced. However, export transactions of such reactors would require resolving a number of important legal and institutional issues related to countries’ commitments under international legal arrangements.

(5) Available documents on user considerations for/requirements to small and medium sized reactors by developing countries are generally favourable to near-term SMRs.

(6) SMRs should provide levelized unit electricity cost (LUEC) competitive to that of the comparable base-load electricity generation sources in a user country. This requirement has a number one priority in all known user requirement documents by developing countries.

(7) SMR economics is known to have no positive impact from the economies of scale. According to the conomy of scale law, the specific (per kW(e)) cost of a nuclear power plant of the same design increases with the decrease of the plant’s unit output. The corresponding effect for a single SMR may reach a factor of 2.5 and beyond if compared to the reactor of large capacity.

The effort of SMR designers is, therefore, first of all focused on finding the design and deployment approaches that could effectively combat the negative impact of the economy of scale. There are two basic designers’ strategies regarding SMR economics:

Direct competition in LUEC with the state-of-the-art reactors of large capacity;

Restricting SMRs to those applications where large reactors for whatever reason cannot be deployed.

(8) The challenge of making a SMR based plant directly competitive to a NPP with large reactor remains unresolved and further investigations and, what is more important, practical demonstration of viability of relevant SMR options would be needed to resolve it. Some recent studies conclude achieving such direct competition may be a manageable task, although restricted to the case of concentrated SMR deployment, i.e., when several SMR based plants, preferably, multi-module or twin-unit based plants are being sequentially deployed on a single site or on several very similar sites following a carefully optimized deployment schedule.

(9) Regarding the second strategy, no challenges or issues regarding competitive worldwide deployment of presently known higher LUEC SMRs were found. The opportunities for such SMRs are defined by the fact that even within the same country (be it a developing or a developed country) LUEC is typically different for different energy technologies and may differ also for the same technologies applied in different circumstances. In this,

several recent studies point to multiple opportunities for competitive deployment of presently-known higher LUEC SMRs in on-grid and off-grid locations in developed and developing countries.

For example:

SMRs could be deployed to replace the decommissioned small sized fossil fuel plants in the cases when certain siting restrictions exist, e.g., limited free capacity of the grid or limited supply of water on the site;

Like nuclear in general, SMRs become more competitive if carbon taxes are emplaced;

At a 10% discount rate some multi-module plants with SMRs may even compete with large reactors in particular regions of the world;

Very small higher LUEC SMRs could be competitive in off-grid locations, such as remote hard-to-access or draught areas or small islands. Such locations typically have very specific climatic and siting conditions, and candidate SMRs should match these conditions in full to be deployable. For example, regarding Russian North and Far East, the barge mounted co-generation NPPs appear to be a perfect near-term choice;

SMRs can also play a stabilizing role in a grid with large share of renewable sources and contribute in reducing the overall cost of a low carbon energy supply.

(10) Regarding financing, SMRs may offer substantial advantages owing to their smaller absolute capital outlay, better scalability and reversibility of SMR projects, shorter construction periods and the resulting minimal financial risks. It is noted that the absolute capital cost of SMRs is always much smaller compared to that of large reactors. Specifically, for the plants in the range below 300 MW(e) the overnight capital costs are below US$ 1 billion.

(11) Projects with small capital outlay are typically more attractive to private investors operating in liberalized markets where indices like the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR) and the payback time are more important than LUEC. Assessment of the NPV, IRR and payback time, therefore, helps better understand the benefits of SMR based projects. Being important to many potential investors, such an approach is already an established practice in some developing countries and could be recommended to all others.

(12) Finally, there are arguments that for developing economies energy system affordability is most important and, therefore, capital (investment) costs of energy systems should stand above LUEC or generation costs in relevant economic assessments. Such a shift of priorities is currently not recognized by developing countries but might be supported by many private investors. Further investigations and a dialogue among all interested stakeholders could be helpful to clarify on its validity.