Technology Assessment for New Nuclear Power Programmes
Vienna International Centre, M3, 1 – 3 September 2015
Small Modular Reactor Designs
and Technologies for Near-Term Deployments
Design Identification and Technology Assessment
Dr. M. Hadid Subki
Nuclear Power Technology Development Section
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
Outline
• Motivation, driving forces, &
•
•
•
•
•
•
definition
Water-cooled reactors
deployment timeline
Member States with SMR
Development
SMR estimated deployment
timeline
SMRs for immediate & near
term deployment
Elements for Decision Making
SMR Design Characteristics
IAEA
• SMR Site Specific
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Considerations
SMR Grid Integration
SMR Plant Safety
SMR Safeguardability
Emergency Planning Zone
SMR Economic, Cost and
Financing Aspects
Key barriers, challenges to
deployment
Elements to Facilitate SMR
Deployment
2
Motivation – Driving Forces…
The need for flexible power generation for wider
range of users and applications
Replacement of aging fossil-fired units
Cogeneration needs in remote and off-grid areas
Potential for enhanced safety margin through
inherent and/or passive safety features
Economic consideration – better affordability
Potential for innovative energy systems:
• Cogeneration & non-electric applications
• Hybrid energy systems of nuclear with renewables
IAEA
3
Small Modular Reactors
Advanced Reactors that produce electric power up to 300 MW, built in factories
and shipped as modules to utilities and sites for installation as demand arises.
IAEA
•
•
Land-based, marine-based, and factory fuelled transportable SMRs
There should be power limit to be modular/transportable (≤ 180 MWe)
WCRs Estimated Timeline of Deployment
IAEA
10 IAEA Member States with SMRs
CAREM25
27 MW(e)
PFBR500
500
KLT-40S
35 x 2
NuScale
50 x 12
AHWR300
300
RITM-200
50
mPower
180 x 2
ABV-6M
6x2
W-SMR
225
VBER-300
300
SMR-160
120
VVER-300
311
PRISM
311
BREST
300
EM2
240
SVBR
100
GT-MHR
285
(2) China
CEFR
20
HTR-PM
211
ACP100
100
CAP150
150
CAP-F
200MW(th)
(3) France
Flexblue
165
(5) Italy
IRIS
325
(6) Japan
4S
30
(9) South Africa
GTHTR300
300
DMS
300
PBMR400
400MW(th)
IMR
350
HTMR-100
100MW(th)
(7) South Korea
SMART
IAEA
(10) United States
(8) Russia
(4) India
(1) Argentina
100
SMRs Estimated Timeline of Deployment
IAEA
SMR Type, Capacity and Year of Deployment
Electrical Capacity (MWe)
350
300
250
200
150
100
≤50
2015
IAEA
2020
2025
Planned Deployment
2030
8
SMRs Under Construction for Immediate
Page 9 of 37
Deployment – the front runners …
Country
Reactor
Model
Output
(MWe)
Designer
Number
of units
Argentina
CAREM-25
27
CNEA
1
China
HTR-PM
250
Tsinghua
Univ./Harbin
Russian
Federation
KLT-40S
(ship-borne)
70
RITM-200
(Icebreaker)
50
IAEA
Commercial
Start
Near the Atucha-2 site
2017 ~ 2018
2 mods,
1 turbine
Shidaowan unit-1
2017 ~ 2018
OKBM
Afrikantov
2
modules
Akademik Lomonosov units 1 & 2
2016 ~ 2017
OKBM
Afrikantov
2
modules
RITM-200 nuclear-propelled
icebreaker ship
2017 ~ 2018
HTR-PM
CAREM-25
Site, Plant ID,
and unit #
KLT-40S
SMRs under development for Near-term Deployment
Page 10 of 37
- Some samples …
Name
Design
Organization
Country of
Origin
Electrical
Capacity,
MWe
1
System Integrated
Modular Advanced
Reactor (SMART)
Korea Atomic Energy
Research Institute
Republic of Korea
100
2
mPower
B&W
Generation mPower
180/module
3
NuScale
NuScale Power Inc.
United States of
America
United States of
America
4
ACP100
CNNC/NPIC
China
100
mPower
SMART
IAEA
Design Status
Standard Design Approval
Received 4 July 2012
50/module
(gross)
Preparing for Design
Certification Application
Preparing for Design
Certification Application
Detailed Design,
Construction Starts in 2016
NuScale
ACP100
Liquid-Metal Cooled, Fast Spectrum SMRs
(Please contact Mr. Stefano Monti, Head of NPTDS at S.Monti@iaea.org)
CEFR
SVBR 100
4S
PRISM
Full name
China Experimental
Fast Reactor
Lead-Bismuth Eutectic
Fast Reactor 100
Super-Safe, Small
& Simple
Power Reactor
Innovative Small Mod.
Designer
China Nuclear Energy
Industry Corporation
AKME Engineering
RUSSIAN Federation
TOSHIBA, CRIEPI
JAPAN
GE Hitachi
USA
Liquid metal cooled
fast reactor
Liquid metal cooled
fast reactor
Liquid metal-cooled
fast reactor
Liquid metal cooled
fast breeder reactor
Thermal power
65 MW
280 MW
30 MW
840 MW
Electrical power
20 MW
101 MW
10 MW
311 MW
Coolant
Sodium
Lead-Bismuth
Sodium
Sodium
Low pressure
6.7 MPa
Non pressurized
Low pressure
530oC
500oC
510oC
485oC
Key features
Fast neutrons for
irradiation testing;
Indirect Rankine
Cycle, Passive safety
Indirect Rankine cycle
Uses heterogeneous
metal alloy core
Design status
Detailed
Detail
Detail
Detail
Connected to
grid 2011
~ 2019
~ 2022
?
Reactor type
S. Pressure
S. Temperature
Deployment
IAEA
Elements for Decision Making
IAEA NE Series: NP-T-1.10
o Site specific
considerations
o Grid integration
o Nuclear plant safety
o Technical
characteristics and
performance
o Nuclear fuel and
fuel cycle
performance
IAEA
o
o
o
o
Radiation protection
Environment impact
Safeguards
Plant and site
security
o Owner’s scope of
supply
o Supplier/
technology holder
issues
o Project schedule
capability
o Technology transfer
and technical
support
o Project contracting
options
o Economics
SMR Design Characteristics (1): iPWR
Westinghouse
SMR
SMART
pressurizer
CRDM
pumps
Steam
generators
core + vessel
Steam
generators
CRDM
pumps
core + vessel
IAEA
13
Page 14 of 37
SMR Design Characteristics (2)
• Multi modules configuration
• Two or more modules located in one location/reactor building and
controlled by single control room
•  reduced staff
•  new approach for I&C system
IAEA
SMR Design Characteristics (3)
• Modularization (construction technology)
•
•
•
•
Factory manufactured, tested and Q.A.
Heavy truck, rail, and barge shipping
Faster construction
Incremental increase of capacity addition as needed
IAEA
SMR Design Characteristics (Summary)
Main Features
Expected Advantage
Integrated
Reactor Coolant System
Simplified, compact and
less weight
Safer,
Flexible and
Efficient
Operation
Multi Modules &
Modular Construction
Enhanced Safety
Performance
Passive Engineered
Safety Features
Enhanced Maintainability
Advanced
Instrumentations & Controls
Increased
Safety and
Reliability
Better Radiation Control
Better cost
affordability
Longer Fuel Cycle
IAEA
Extended Design Life
SMR Site Specific Considerations
• Site size requirements, boundary conditions, population,
neighbours and environs
• Site structure plan; single or multi-unit site requirements
 What site specific issues could affect the site
preparation schedule and costs?
 What is the footprint of the major facilities on
the site?
IAEA
SMR Grid Integration (1)
• Grid stability, size, existing and future capacity, plant connectivity
• Plant operation under normal, disturbed and isolated grid conditions
What are the abilities of the SMRs power station to
operate on load follow?
IAEA
SMR Grid Integration (2)
•
Design: SMR’s projects propose innovative passive safety systems requiring
less or no electrical power to cool down the decay heat, however:
•
For long time operation after accident, the grid will always be the best off-site power source to
feed monitoring and support systems.
Expert opinion: The grid connection policy of nuclear plants may be adapted to :
• Integrate the benefits provided by passive systems in terms of reduced
required power, absence of HV safety buses, power distribution simplification..
• Confirm SBO rule (NRC 10 CFR 50.63)
• The expected frequency of loss of offsite power; and
• The probable time needed to restore offsite power
• Confirm NRC 10 CFR 50 GDC-17
• Two independent sources of AC power of sufficient capacity and capability
• Onsite power sources together should meet single failure
• Provisions to minimize loss of electric power coincident with or as result from loss of power
SMR’s should have for their grid connection the same level of reliability,
availability, maintainability, observability, security as electrical systems of large
reactors
IAEA
SMR Grid Integration (3)
• Operation: As indicated before, grid requirements should
be same as or close to fossil fires units and applicable at
grid connection point.
• Except for reactive capability requirements for multiple units
• Warning : Small unit does not have necessarily better transient
stability
• A few indicative figures for active power grid performances:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Power set point controlled +/- 1% Pmax (max electrical power)
Power frequency control +/- 5% to 10% Pmax
Automatic frequency control +/- 5 Pmax
Ramp up 5% Pmax/min between 60% RTP and 100% RTP
Ramp down 20% Pmax/min between 100% RTP and 60% RTP
Automated load follow
Load follow cycles 100%-x%-100% capable several times a day
• Note : Some SMR design propose to shut down units to comply with grid
requirements
IAEA
SMR Plant Safety (1)
• Enhanced performance engineered safety features:
Natural circulation primary flow (CAREM, NuScale)  No LOFA
• Reactivity control
• Internal CRDM (IRIS, mPower, Westinghouse SMR, CAREM)
• No rod ejection accident
• Gravity driven secondary shutdown system (CAREM, IRIS, West. SMR)
• Residual heat removal system
• Passive Residual Heat Removal System (CAREM, mPower, West. SMR)
• Passive Residual heat removal through SG and HX submerged in water pool
(IRIS, SMART, NuScale)
• Safety injection System
• Passive Injection System (CAREM, CAREM, mPower)
• Active injection System (SMART)
• Flooded containment with recirculation valve
IAEA
Page 22 of 37
SMR Plant Safety (2)
• Containment
• Passively cooled Containment :
• Submerged Containment (Convection and condensation of steam inside containment,
the heat transferred to external pool) (NuScale, W-SMR)
• Steel containment (mPower)
• Concrete containment with spray system (SMART)
• Pressure suppression containment (CAREM, IRIS)
• Severe Accident Feature
• In-vessel Corium retention (IRIS, Westinghouse SMR, mPower, NuScale,
•
•
CAREM)
Hydrogen passive autocatalytic recombiner (CAREM, SMART)
Inerted containment (IRIS)
IAEA
Page 23 of 37
SMRs in terms of Safeguards (1)
•
•
•
•
Collaborations of IAEA with Brookhaven
NL and Pacific Northwest NL, USA
In-house IAEA collaborations of SG,
INPRO and NPTDS
Supporting non-proliferation through
safeguards by design for small modular
reactors
Summary of Approaches for Evaluation
of Proliferation Resistance and
Safeguardability for SMRs
• GIF: analytical framework, threats,
•
•
pathways, outcomes
INPRO: user requirements, check list,
rules of good practice
How they can be used together to
enhance SMR safeguardability
IAEA
Page 24 of 37
SMRs in terms of Safeguards (2)
• Small power  small radio
logical inventory  smaller
release during off-normal
conditions
• Small physical footprint 
smaller security force 
fewer surveillance
• Higher enrichment levels for
some SMRs
• Remote locations of facilities
present new challenges for
inspection
IAEA
24
Risk-Informed approach and EPZ reduction
•
Risk-Informed approach to “No (or reduced) Emergency Planning Zone”
• Elimination or substantial reduction (NPP fences) of the Emergency
Planning Zone
•
New procedure developed: Deterministic + Probabilistic needed to
evaluate EPZ (function of radiation dose limit and NPP safety level)
•
Procedure developed within a IAEA CRP; discussed with NRC
CAORSO site
IRIS: 1 km
France Evacuation Zone:
5 km
IAEA
US Emergency Planning Zone: 10
miles
25
SMR Economic, Cost and Financing
Key issues
Large Nuclear Power Plants
Calculated levelized
costs
o
Capital cost
o
o
O&M cost
Stable (Less variation)
Fuel cost
o
o
o
Decommissioning
costs
IAEA
o
o
SMRs
Proven lower ¢/kW.h generating
cost compared to SMRs
Still struggling to compete with
natural gas
Potential lower levelized costs
(economy of multiples)
Huge upfront capital cost
Economy of scale
o
o
o
Fractional upfront capital cost
Easier to finance
Economy of serial production
o
o
Potential lower cost
Could fluctuate due to uncertainty
in plant staffing for multi-module
plant and security force
Inherently low; (9 – 15)% of total
cost; technology dependent
On going R&Ds on advanced
safer and more economical fuel
o
Could have the same fraction to
total cost as large NPPs
Many CHF tests for new
truncated LWR fuels for licensing
High decommissioning cost
More time required
Smaller cost of decommissioning:
o Replaceable modules
o Factory disassembled/
decommissioned
o
Capital costs for SMRs
Key Topics
Capital component of levelized cost of power
Comparison of material quantities
Impact of local labour and productivity
Prospects
Issues
Potential decrease in case of large
scale and serial production
Require large initial order
Design saving
Standardization of new structure,
system, components and materials
o
First of a kind deployment of multimodule plant with modularization
construction technology vs stickbuild
o
Reduced construction time for
proven design
Lesser work force required with
modular construction
Based on LWRs technology - easier
licensing
First of a kind; Time required for
modifying the existing regulatory
and legal frameworks
Plant design and costs include Fukushima
related safety improvements
Better flexibility to incorporate
lessons-learned from the Fukushimatype accident
Additional cost required for
R&D on new safety system
Ensuring all necessary equipment is
included in the cost estimate, e.g. there is no
‘missing equipment’
Learning effect: the higher the number
of SMR built on the same site is, the
better the cost effectiveness of
construction activities on site
Cost impact by delayed component
delivery or defect during shipping
Similar among vendors
Manufacturing of FOAK
components
Cost of licensing
Assurance of reliable estimates of
technology holder equipment prices
IAEA
SMR Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs
Key Topics
Prospects
Issues
Evaluation of projected O&M with
comparisons to experience
Operating experience may lead to
efficient SMR operation
Need to gain O&M experience
Staffing
Regulatory-based well agreed
number of staffs required
Staffing of multi-module plant need
to be addressed
Plant design features to reduce O&M cost
Design simplicity and proven
Design simplicity yet FOAK
Impact of localization versus O&M contract
Applicable in countries with capable
industries applying stick-built
o
o
Opportunities and costs for shared spare
parts pool
o
o
Modular construction with
factory built modules
Multi-module plant
In contrary with the principle of
modularization
Embarking countries with
limited industries
o
Sustainability of components
supply chain
Reliance on passive design and redundant
system trains to optimize operation and
maintenance on-line
High level of passive or inherent
safety features with better O&M
cost
o
Cost for R&D and V&V for
FOAK technology
Optimized outage schedules based on
equipment performance and trending data,
real and historic
Multi-module plant:
o Redundancy of production unit
(Better flexibility)
o
Plant specific outage scheme
proposed, but yet to be proven
IAEA
 What is the technology holder’s estimate of the O&M cost advantage
or penalty for the proposed facility (cost/kW·h) versus the O&M costs
reported for today’s fleet?
Cost of Specific Utilization
Keys Topics
Prospects
Issues
Flexible operation
“Load follow” is an imbedded
capability of all SMRs
Varied from technical to
safety to O&M cost for high
frequency/amplitude flexible
operation
Cogeneration (e.g.
desalination, district
heating, hydrogen
production)
o SMR power output suits well
with existing heat and
desalination plants
o Multi-module: guarantee of
continuous supply
• How many large NPPs
with desalination
cogeneration? –
operating/utilization
experience
• Near-term SMR designs
are certified for electricity
production plant only.
Remote grids
o Can be connected to small
o Site specific
and weak grids, where large
o Proper infrastructures
NPPs are not feasible
required which may not
o Where non-electric products
be available in remote
(heat or desalinated water) are
areas
as important as the electricity
IAEA
Potential Advantages & Perceived Challenges
by Investors & Users
Advantages
Challenges
Technological Issues
Non-Technological
Issues
• Shorter construction period
(modularization)
• Potential for enhanced safety and
reliability
• Design simplicity
• Suitability for non-electric
application (desalination, etc.).
• Replacement for aging fossil
plants, reducing GHG emissions
• Licensability (due to innovative or
first-of-a-kind engineering structure,
systems and components)
• Non-LWR technologies
• Operability performance/record
• Human factor engineering; operator
staffing for multiple-modules plant
• Post Fukushima action items on
design and safety
• Fitness for smaller electricity grids
• Options to match demand growth
by incremental capacity increase
• Site flexibility
• Reduced emergency planning zone
• Lower upfront capital cost (better
affordability)
• Easier financing scheme
• Economic competitiveness
• First of a kind cost estimate
• Regulatory infrastructure (in both
expanding and newcomer countries)
• Availability of design for newcomers
• Infrastructure requirements
• Post Fukushima action items on
institutional issues and public
acceptance
30
IAEA
Page 31 of 37
Identified and Potential Operating Issues
• Control room staffing for multi-module SMR Plants
• Human factor engineering, implication of digital I&C
• Defining source term for multi-module SMR Plants in
regards to determining emergency planning zone, etc.
• Standardization of first-of-a-kind engineering structure,
systems and components
• Rational start-up procedure for natural circulation SMR
designs
• Power fluctuation and instability in different operating modes
• Conduct of Operation and Operating Limit & Condition
(OLC) for SMRs intended for continuous Load-Follow
operation in off-grid
• Associated safety and component reliability aspects
IAEA
Page 32 of 37
Key Barriers/Challenges to Deployment
• Limited near-term commercial availability of SMR designs
for embarking countries
• Capacity building in embarking countries’ nuclear regulatory authority for
advanced reactors depends on the preparedness of vendor countries’
regulatory and licensing infrastructures
• Technology developers to enhance the ability to secure
significant additional EPC contracts from investors to
provide the financial support for design development and
deployment: first domestic, then international markets
• Lower price of natural gas in some countries including the US limits the
need of utilities to adopt nuclear power.
• Unless the development and deployment were fully state-funded
• Economic competitiveness over alternatives
• Regulatory, licensing and safety issues in Post Fukushima.
IAEA
Elements to Facilitate SMR Deployment
Module 1: Design Development and Deployment Issues
Average Ranking
SMRs with lower generating
cost
1
SMRs inexpensive to build
and operate
2
Multi-modules SMR
deployment
3
SMRs with flexibility for
cogeneration
4
Passive safety systems
5
SMRs with automated
operation feature
Modification to regulatory,
licensing
SMRs with enhanced prolif
resistance
IAEA
Transportable SMRs with
sealed-fueled
Build-Own-Operate project
scheme
Average Ranking (1 Is
Most Important)
Summary
 IAEA is engaged in SMR Deployment Issues
 Nine countries developing ~40 SMR designs with
different time scales of deployment and 4 units are
under construction (CAREM25, HTR-PM, KLT-40s, PFBR500)
 Commercial availability and operating experience in
vendors’ countries is key to embarking country adoption
 Countries understand the potential benefits of SMRs,
but support needed to assess the specific technology
and customize to their own circumstances
 Indicators of future international deployment show
positive potential
IAEA
34
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
New Publication on SMR that covers Up-to-Date
Water-Cooled and High Temperature Gas-Cooled SMR Designs Information
Please download from: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/SMR
For inquiries on SMR, contact:
Dr. M. Hadid Subki
<M.Subki@iaea.org>
IAEA
Sample of Technology Assessment
IAEA
Summary of advantages and challenges of
SMR designs
SMR Types
Advantages
Challenges
Conventional PWR
with external coolant
loops
•
•
Integral pressurized
water reactor
(iPWR)
Eliminate large break
LOCA
•
•
Established system
Few design options for cost
reductions
High temperature
gas reactor
Proven passive cooling with little
operator or safety system action
required
•
Large core, larger pressure
vessel
Internal graphite structures
IAEA
Proven performance
Established means of access
to large components
•
•
•
Need solution to provide
access for inspection or repair
CRDM operability in new
environment required
Helical Steam Generators
Advantages
•
•
•
•
•
Some experience in nuclear
applications
Low pressure drop with large heat
transfer path
Produces superheated
Steam
ACP100, CAREM and SMART
designs have a large number of
pressure vessel connections, albeit
well above the core
IAEA
Challenges
•
•
Balancing the flow through the helical coils
requires the use of flow restrictors.
Testing in progress for NuScale to ensure that
there are no unforeseen issues with flow
induced vibration
SMR Coolant Pump Comparison
SMR Designs
Coolant Pumps
Considerations
SMR #1
4 canned motor, one in
each coolant loop
Proven design
SMR #2
Helium circulator mounted on top of
steam generator
Integral design; no piping or additional support for
separate component
SMR #3
None
Natural circulation. No pump support requirements
(cooling, controls, indications, or power)
SMR #4
4 canned motor horizontally mounted on
RPV above top of S/G
Proven design
SMR #5
4 canned motor short L‐shaped piping
extension mid vessel
Proven design
SMR #5
None
Natural circulation. No pump support requirements
(cooling, controls, indications, or power)
SMR #6
8 canned motor, vertically mounted,
around
pressurizer at top of vessel
Proven design
SMR #7
8 canned motor, horizontally mounted
above CRDMs
Proven design
SMR #8
None
Natural circulation.
IAEA
SMRs are not new …
1958 – 1962:
1963 – 1971:
~ 1985:
Small: Power ≤ 100 MWe
Medium: Power ≤ 150 MWe
Small: Power ≤ 100 MWe
Medium: Power ≤ 500 MWe
Small: Power ≤ 100 MWe
Medium: Power ≤ 500 MWe
IAEA
SMRs are not new …
1989 – 1995:
Small: Power ≤ 300 MWe
Medium: 300 < P ≤ 700 MWe
Including: AP600, SBWR,
CANDU3 and CANDU6
IAEA
1996 – 2012:
• Small: Power ≤ 300 MWe
• Medium: 300 < P ≤ 700 MWe
• Started R&D for Advanced
modular reactors
• Floating Nuclear Power Plants
2012 – 2017:
•
•
•
•
•
Small: Power ≤ 300 MWe
Medium: 300 < P ≤ 700 MWe
Modular reactor – trend of development
HTGR SMR under construction in China
iPWR SMR under construction in
Argentina
• Some certified, many under licensing
SMR for Immediate Deployment
CAREM-25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IAEA
Full name: Central Argentina de Elementos
Modulares
Designer: National Atomic Energy
Commission of Argentina (CNEA)
Reactor type: Integral PWR
Coolant/Moderator : Light Water
Neutron Spectrum: Thermal Neutrons
Thermal/Electrical Capacity: 87.0 MW(t) /
27 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: 14 months
Salient Features: primary coolant system
within the RPV, self-pressurized and relying
entirely on natural convection.
Design status: Site excavation completed,
construction started in 2012
CAREM25 – 1
IAEA
CAREM25 – 2
IAEA
CAREM25 – 3
IAEA
SMR for Near-term Deployment
SMART
© 2011 KAERI – Republic of Korea
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IAEA
Full name: System-Integrated Modular
Advanced Reactor
Designer: Korea Atomic Energy Research
Institute (KAERI), Republic of Korea
Reactor type: Integral PWR
Coolant/Moderator: Light Water
Neutron Spectrum: Thermal Neutrons
Thermal/Electrical Capacity:
330 MW(t) / 100 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: 36 months
Salient Features: Passive decay heat
removal system in the secondary side;
horizontally mounted RCPs; intended for sea
water desalination and electricity supply in
newcomer countries with small grid
Design status: Standard Design Approval
just granted on 4 July 2012
SMART – 1
IAEA
SMART – 2
IAEA
SMR for Near-term Deployment
NuScale
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IAEA
Full name: NuScale
Designer: NuScale Power Inc., USA
Reactor type: Integral Pressurized Water
Reactor
Coolant/Moderator: Light Water
Neutron Spectrum: Thermal Neutrons
Thermal/Electrical Capacity:
165 MW(t)/50 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: 24 months
Salient Features: Natural circulation cooled;
Decay heat removal using containment; built
below ground
Design status: Design Certification
application expected in 4th Quarter of 2016
NuScale – 1
IAEA
NuScale – 2
IAEA
SMART – 3
IAEA
SMR for Near-term Deployment:
mPower
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IAEA
Full name: mPower
Designer: Babcock & Wilcox Modular
Nuclear Energy, LLC(B&W), United States of
America
Reactor type: Integral Pressurized Water
Reactor
Coolant/Moderator: Light Water
Neutron Spectrum: Thermal Neutrons
Thermal/Electrical Capacity:
530 MW(t) / 180 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: 48-month or more
Salient Features: integral NSSS, CRDM
inside reactor vessel; Passive safety that
does not require emergency diesel generator
Design status: Design Certification
application expected by 3rd Quarter of 2014
mPower – 1
IAEA
mPower – 2
IAEA
Westinghouse SMR – 1
IAEA
Westinghouse SMR – 2
IAEA
Main Engineering Characteristics of KLT-40s FNPP
© 2011 OKBM Afrikantov
TYPE - SMOOTH-DECK NON-SELF-PROPELLED SHIP
LENGTH, m
140,0
WIDTH, m
30,0
BOARD HEIGHT, m
DRAUGHT, m
10,0
5,6
DISPLACEMENT, t
21 000
FPU SERVICE LIFE, YEARS
IAEA
M.H.Subki
(IAEA/NENP/NPTDS/06Nov2012)
40
59
SMR for Near Term Deployment
SVBR-100
© 2011 JSC AKME Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IAEA
•
Designer: JSC AKME Engineering –
Russian Federation
Reactor type: Liquid metal cooled fast
reactor
Coolant/Moderator: Lead-bismuth
System temperature: 500oC
Neutron Spectrum: Fast Neutrons
Thermal/Electric capacity: 280 MW(t) /
101 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: 7 – 8 years
Fuel enrichment: 16.3%
Distinguishing Features: Closed nuclear
fuel cycle with mixed oxide uranium
plutonium fuel, operation in a fuel selfsufficient mode
Design status: Detailed design
SMR for Near-term Deployment
4S
© 2011 TOSHIBA CORPORATION
•
•
•
Turbine/
Generator
•
•
•
Steam
Generator
Reactor
IAEA
•
•
Full name: Super-Safe, Small and
Simple
Designer: Toshiba Corporation, Japan
Reactor type: Liquid Sodium cooled,
Fast Reactor – but not a breeder
reactor
Neutron Spectrum: Fast Neutrons
Thermal/Electrical Capacity:
30 MW(t)/10 MW(e)
Fuel Cycle: without on-site refueling
with core lifetime ~30 years. Movable
reflector surrounding core gradually
moves, compensating burn-up reactivity
loss over 30 years.
Salient Features: power can be
controlled by the water/steam system
without affecting the core operation
Design status: Detailed Design