Difference between revisions of "Small modular reactor"
m |
m (tidy references) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Electricity was first generated from nuclear energy on [[Experimental Breeder Reactor I|December 20, 1951]] in the high desert of south-eastern Idaho. The original electrical output was estimated at 45 kW.<ref>Stacy, S. [https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_7236_257_5534_43/http%3B/inlpublisher%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/communities/inl_gov/newsroom/publicationsarchive/ptpchapter_08.pdf "The Reactor Zoo Goes Critical"], [https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=257&PageID=5534&cached=true&mode=2&userID=3338 ''Proving the Principle'']</ref> Since then, reactors have grown much larger, with electrical outputs of over 1,400 MW.<ref>Atteberry, J. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-biggest-nuclear-reactors4.htm "Five Biggest Nuclear Reactors"], [http://www.howstuffworks.com/ ''How Stuff Works'']</ref> Almost 50 years after the first nuclear energy was generated, applications for reactors with low electrical outputs are being introduced again. | Electricity was first generated from nuclear energy on [[Experimental Breeder Reactor I|December 20, 1951]] in the high desert of south-eastern Idaho. The original electrical output was estimated at 45 kW.<ref>Stacy, S. [https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_7236_257_5534_43/http%3B/inlpublisher%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/communities/inl_gov/newsroom/publicationsarchive/ptpchapter_08.pdf "The Reactor Zoo Goes Critical"], [https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=257&PageID=5534&cached=true&mode=2&userID=3338 ''Proving the Principle'']</ref> Since then, reactors have grown much larger, with electrical outputs of over 1,400 MW.<ref>Atteberry, J. [http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-biggest-nuclear-reactors4.htm "Five Biggest Nuclear Reactors"], [http://www.howstuffworks.com/ ''How Stuff Works'']</ref> Almost 50 years after the first nuclear energy was generated, applications for reactors with low electrical outputs are being introduced again. | ||
| − | According to a report prepared by [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]], the long-term goal of [[nuclear power]] is to "develop an economic, safe, environmentally acceptable, unlimited supply of energy for society."<ref> | + | According to a report prepared by [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]], the long-term goal of [[nuclear power]] is to "develop an economic, safe, environmentally acceptable, unlimited supply of energy for society."<ref>http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1991/3445603211254.pdf </ref> |
Many of these smaller reactor designs are being made "modular" – in other words, they will be manufactured and assembled at a central factory location. They are then sent to their new location where they can be installed with very little difficulty. These SMRs are particularly useful in remote locations where there is usually a deficiency of trained workers and a higher cost of shipping. Containment is more efficient, and proliferation concerns are lessened.<ref>[http://nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2011_SMR_Factsheet.pdf "Small Modular Reactors"], [http://nuclear.energy.gov/ ''Department of Energy – Office of Nuclear Energy'']</ref> SMRs are also more flexible in that they do not necessarily need to be hooked into a large power grid, and can generally be attached to other modules to provide increased power supplies if necessary. | Many of these smaller reactor designs are being made "modular" – in other words, they will be manufactured and assembled at a central factory location. They are then sent to their new location where they can be installed with very little difficulty. These SMRs are particularly useful in remote locations where there is usually a deficiency of trained workers and a higher cost of shipping. Containment is more efficient, and proliferation concerns are lessened.<ref>[http://nuclear.energy.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2011_SMR_Factsheet.pdf "Small Modular Reactors"], [http://nuclear.energy.gov/ ''Department of Energy – Office of Nuclear Energy'']</ref> SMRs are also more flexible in that they do not necessarily need to be hooked into a large power grid, and can generally be attached to other modules to provide increased power supplies if necessary. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Potential uses== | ==Potential uses== | ||
| − | SMRs could be used to power significant users of energy, such as large [[Watercraft|vessels]] or production facilities (e.g. [[Wastewater treatment|water treatment/purification]], or [[Mining|mines]]). Remote locations often have difficulty finding economically efficient, reliable energy sources. Small nuclear reactors have been considered as solutions to many energy problems in these hard-to-reach places. Cogeneration options have been presented in journals.<ref> | + | SMRs could be used to power significant users of energy, such as large [[Watercraft|vessels]] or production facilities (e.g. [[Wastewater treatment|water treatment/purification]], or [[Mining|mines]]). Remote locations often have difficulty finding economically efficient, reliable energy sources. Small nuclear reactors have been considered as solutions to many energy problems in these hard-to-reach places. Cogeneration options have been presented in journals.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701630292X</ref> |
==Proposed sites== | ==Proposed sites== | ||
===United Kingdom=== | ===United Kingdom=== | ||
| − | In 2016 it was reported that the [[United Kingdom]] Government was assessing sites for deploying SMRs in [[Wales]] - including the former [[Trawsfynydd nuclear power station]] - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including [[Bradwell nuclear power station|Bradwell]], [[Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station|Hartlepool]], [[Heysham nuclear power station|Heysham]], [[Oldbury Nuclear Power Station|Oldbury]], [[Sizewell nuclear power stations|Sizewell]], [[Sellafield]] and [[Wylfa Nuclear Power Station|Wylfa]] are thought to be possibilities.<ref> | + | In 2016 it was reported that the [[United Kingdom]] Government was assessing sites for deploying SMRs in [[Wales]] - including the former [[Trawsfynydd nuclear power station]] - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including [[Bradwell nuclear power station|Bradwell]], [[Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station|Hartlepool]], [[Heysham nuclear power station|Heysham]], [[Oldbury Nuclear Power Station|Oldbury]], [[Sizewell nuclear power stations|Sizewell]], [[Sellafield]] and [[Wylfa Nuclear Power Station|Wylfa]] are thought to be possibilities.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/02/mini-nuclear-power-stations-in-uk-towns-move-one-step-closer/</ref> |
===United States=== | ===United States=== | ||
| − | The [[Tennessee Valley Authority]] announced it will be submitting an Early Site Permit Application (ESPA) to the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] in May 2016 for potentially siting an SMR at its Clinch River Site in Tennessee. This ESPA would be valid for up to 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness associated. TVA has not made a technology selection so this ESPA would be applicable for any of the light-water reactor SMR designs under development in the United States.<ref> | + | The [[Tennessee Valley Authority]] announced it will be submitting an Early Site Permit Application (ESPA) to the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] in May 2016 for potentially siting an SMR at its Clinch River Site in Tennessee. This ESPA would be valid for up to 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness associated. TVA has not made a technology selection so this ESPA would be applicable for any of the light-water reactor SMR designs under development in the United States.<ref>https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Technology-Innovation/Small-Modular-Reactors</ref> |
| − | The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced a teaming partnership with [[Energy Northwest]] to explore siting a [[NuScale Power]] reactor in [[Idaho]], possibly on the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]]'s [[Idaho National Laboratory]].<ref> | + | The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced a teaming partnership with [[Energy Northwest]] to explore siting a [[NuScale Power]] reactor in [[Idaho]], possibly on the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]]'s [[Idaho National Laboratory]].<ref>http://www.uamps.com/index.php/38-items/24-carbon-free-power-project</ref> |
The [[Galena Nuclear Power Plant]] in [[Galena, Alaska]] was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation intended to reduce the costs and environmental pollution required to power the town. It was a potential deployment for the [[Toshiba 4S]] reactor. | The [[Galena Nuclear Power Plant]] in [[Galena, Alaska]] was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation intended to reduce the costs and environmental pollution required to power the town. It was a potential deployment for the [[Toshiba 4S]] reactor. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
===Fission and reactivity control=== | ===Fission and reactivity control=== | ||
| − | Nuclear power plants generate heat through [[nuclear fission]]. When an unstable nucleus (such as | + | Nuclear power plants generate heat through [[nuclear fission]]. When an unstable nucleus (such as U235) absorbs an extra [[neutron]], the [[atom]] will split, releasing large quantities of energy in the form of heat and radiation. The split atom will also release neutrons, which can then be absorbed by other unstable nuclei, causing a chain reaction. A sustained fission chain is necessary to generate nuclear power. |
| − | There are certain conditions that must be met for this chain reaction to occur. Certain fuel densities are necessary, or the neutrons won't impact a sufficient number of other unstable atoms before escaping the reactor. It is also easier for unstable nuclei to absorb neutrons when the neutrons are traveling at a certain speed. For | + | There are certain conditions that must be met for this chain reaction to occur. Certain fuel densities are necessary, or the neutrons won't impact a sufficient number of other unstable atoms before escaping the reactor. It is also easier for unstable nuclei to absorb neutrons when the neutrons are traveling at a certain speed. For U235, slower neutrons are more likely to cause a fission reaction. In order to slow down the neutrons in a reactor core, a [[neutron moderator|moderator]] is used. Water is the most common moderator in use today. The neutrons are slowed down as they travel through the water. As the reaction speeds up and the temperature of the reactor increases, increasing the temperature of the moderator, the neutrons aren’t slowed down as effectively. This in turn reduces the rate of nuclear reactions inside the core, since the faster neutrons aren’t as easy to absorb. This effect, the negative [[temperature coefficient]], makes the reactor inherently resistant to "[[criticality accident|excursion]]", or a sudden, uncontrolled increase in temperature.<ref>{{harvnb|DOE-HDBK-1019|1993}}</ref> |
| − | Some SMRs are "fast reactors" – they don’t use moderators to slow down the neutrons. The fuel requirements in this kind of reactor are a little different. The atoms have to absorb neutrons travelling at higher speeds. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuel types. | + | Some SMRs are "fast reactors" – they don’t use moderators to slow down the neutrons. The fuel requirements in this kind of reactor are a little different. The atoms have to absorb neutrons travelling at higher speeds. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuel types. Plutonium Pu239 is more likely to absorb a high-speed neutron than U235. However, the same negative temperature coefficient comes into play with fast nuclear reactors. Once the core heats up too much and the neutrons start to move faster, even the elements that would usually be able to absorb neutrons have trouble capturing them. Fission slows, and the reactor cannot run out of control.<ref>{{harvnb|DOE-HDBK-1019|1993|p=50}}</ref> |
| − | Another benefit of these fast reactors is that some of them are [[breeder reactor]]s. As these reactors produce energy, they also let off enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A very common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of | + | Another benefit of these fast reactors is that some of them are [[breeder reactor]]s. As these reactors produce energy, they also let off enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A very common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of U238, which is the most easily found isotope of uranium. Once the U238 undergoes a [[neutron capture|neutron absorption reaction]], it becomes Pu239, which can be removed from the reactor once it is time to refuel, and used as more fuel once it has been cleaned.<ref name="world-nuclear1">Carlson, J. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html "Fast Neutron Reactors"], [http://world-nuclear.org ''World Nuclear Association'']</ref> |
===Coolant=== | ===Coolant=== | ||
| − | Currently, most reactors use water as a coolant. Light water | + | Currently, most reactors use water as a coolant. Light water is more common than [[heavy water]] (deuterium). New reactor designs are experimenting with different coolant types. [[Liquid metal cooled reactor|Liquid metal reactors]] have been used both in the U.S. and other countries for some time. [[Gas cooled reactor|Gas-cooled reactors]] and [[Molten salt reactor]]s are also being looked at as an option for very high temperature operation.<ref name="world-nuclear2">Wilson, P.D. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html "Nuclear Power Reactors"], [http://www.world-nuclear.org ''World Nuclear Association'']</ref><ref>http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/flibe-energy-liquid-flouride-thorium.html </ref> |
===Thermal/electrical generation=== | ===Thermal/electrical generation=== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
=== Easier load following === | === Easier load following === | ||
| − | Nuclear power plants have been historically deployed to cover the [[base load]] of the electricity demand.<ref> | + | Nuclear power plants have been historically deployed to cover the [[base load]] of the electricity demand.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701630292X</ref> |
Nowadays some nuclear power plants might perform daily load cycling operation (i.e. load following) between 50% and 100% of their rated power. | Nowadays some nuclear power plants might perform daily load cycling operation (i.e. load following) between 50% and 100% of their rated power. | ||
With respect to the insertion of control rods or comparable action to reduce the nuclear power generation, a more efficient alternative might be the “Load Following by Cogeneration”, i.e. diverting the excess of power, respect to the electricity demand, to an auxiliary system. A suitable cogeneration system needs: | With respect to the insertion of control rods or comparable action to reduce the nuclear power generation, a more efficient alternative might be the “Load Following by Cogeneration”, i.e. diverting the excess of power, respect to the electricity demand, to an auxiliary system. A suitable cogeneration system needs: | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
From the economic standpoint, it is essential that the investment in the auxiliary system is profitable. | From the economic standpoint, it is essential that the investment in the auxiliary system is profitable. | ||
| − | District heating, desalination and hydrogen have been proposed as technically and economically feasible options. | + | District heating, desalination and hydrogen have been proposed as technically and economically feasible options. |
| − | SMR can be ideal to do load following being used for desalination over the night. | + | SMR can be ideal to do load following being used for desalination over the night. |
===Waste reduction=== | ===Waste reduction=== | ||
| − | Many SMRs are fast reactors that are designed to have higher fuel burnup rates, reducing the amount of waste produced. At higher neutron energy more [[nuclear fission product|fission products]] can be usually tolerated. As mentioned before, some SMRs are also breeder reactors, which not only "burn" fuels like | + | Many SMRs are fast reactors that are designed to have higher fuel burnup rates, reducing the amount of waste produced. At higher neutron energy more [[nuclear fission product|fission products]] can be usually tolerated. As mentioned before, some SMRs are also breeder reactors, which not only "burn" fuels like U235, but will also convert [[fissionable]] materials like U238 (which occurs naturally at a much higher concentration than U235 into usable fuels.<ref name="world-nuclear1"/> |
Some reactors are designed to run on alternative [[thorium fuel cycle]], which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to uranium cycle.<ref>Section 5.3, WASH 1097 "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors", available as a PDF from Liquid-Halide Reactor Documents database: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/</ref> | Some reactors are designed to run on alternative [[thorium fuel cycle]], which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to uranium cycle.<ref>Section 5.3, WASH 1097 "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors", available as a PDF from Liquid-Halide Reactor Documents database: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/</ref> | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
===Non-proliferation=== | ===Non-proliferation=== | ||
| − | The use of nuclear materials to create weapons is always a concern. Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% | + | The use of nuclear materials to create weapons is always a concern. Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% U235. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been [[irradiation|irradiated]], the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature. |
| − | As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically small, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than existing nuclear plants. This is both at more sites in existing nuclear power states, such as old fossil fuel generation plants, and in more countries that previously did not have nuclear plants. It is also intended that SMR sites have much lower staffing levels than current nuclear plants. Because of the increased number of sites, with fewer staff, physical protection and security becomes an increased challenge which could increase proliferation risks.<ref name=areva-20100618> | + | As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically small, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than existing nuclear plants. This is both at more sites in existing nuclear power states, such as old fossil fuel generation plants, and in more countries that previously did not have nuclear plants. It is also intended that SMR sites have much lower staffing levels than current nuclear plants. Because of the increased number of sites, with fewer staff, physical protection and security becomes an increased challenge which could increase proliferation risks.<ref name=areva-20100618>http://bnrc.berkeley.edu/documents/forum-2010/Presentations/S-Session-III/Dominique_Greneche_NuclearConsulting_Pres.pdf </ref><ref name=nrc-20141105>https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2014/20141105/glaser-11-05-14.pdf </ref> |
Some SMR designs are intended to have lifetime cores so the SMRs do not need refuelling. This improves proliferation resistance by not requiring any on-site nuclear fuel handling. But it also means that there will be large inventories of fissile material within the SMRs to sustain a long lifetime, which could make it a more attractive proliferation target. A 200 [[MWe]] 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium toward the end of its working life.<ref name=nrc-20141105/> | Some SMR designs are intended to have lifetime cores so the SMRs do not need refuelling. This improves proliferation resistance by not requiring any on-site nuclear fuel handling. But it also means that there will be large inventories of fissile material within the SMRs to sustain a long lifetime, which could make it a more attractive proliferation target. A 200 [[MWe]] 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium toward the end of its working life.<ref name=nrc-20141105/> | ||
| − | [[Light water reactor|Light-water reactors]] designed to run on the [[thorium fuel cycle]] offer increased [[nuclear proliferation|proliferation]] resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle, though [[molten salt reactors]] have a substantial risk. | + | [[Light water reactor|Light-water reactors]] designed to run on the [[thorium fuel cycle]] offer increased [[nuclear proliferation|proliferation]] resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle, though [[molten salt reactors]] have a substantial risk. |
The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation. | The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation. | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| [[ABV Reactor|ABV-6]] || 6–9 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[OKBM Afrikantov]], Russia || Detailed Design | | [[ABV Reactor|ABV-6]] || 6–9 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[OKBM Afrikantov]], Russia || Detailed Design | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[ANGSTREM]] | + | | [[ANGSTREM]] || 6 || [[Lead-cooled fast reactor|LFR]] || [[OKB Gidropress]], Russia || Conceptual Design |
|- | |- | ||
| [[B&W mPower|mPower]] || 195 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Babcock & Wilcox]], USA || <s>Basic Design</s><br/><small>(Cancelled March 2017)</small> | | [[B&W mPower|mPower]] || 195 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Babcock & Wilcox]], USA || <s>Basic Design</s><br/><small>(Cancelled March 2017)</small> | ||
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
| [[Gen4 Energy|G4M]] || 25 || [[Lead-cooled fast reactor|LFR]] || [[Gen4 Energy]], USA || Conceptual Design | | [[Gen4 Energy|G4M]] || 25 || [[Lead-cooled fast reactor|LFR]] || [[Gen4 Energy]], USA || Conceptual Design | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[IMSR|IMSR400]] || 185–192 || [[Molten Salt Reactor|MSR]] || Terrestrial Energy, Inc.,<ref> | + | | [[IMSR|IMSR400]] || 185–192 || [[Molten Salt Reactor|MSR]] || Terrestrial Energy, Inc.,<ref>http://terrestrialenergy.com/</ref> Canada || Conceptual Design |
|- | |- | ||
| [[International Reactor Innovative and Secure|IRIS]] || 335 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Westinghouse Electric Company|Westinghouse]]-led, international || Basic Design | | [[International Reactor Innovative and Secure|IRIS]] || 335 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Westinghouse Electric Company|Westinghouse]]-led, international || Basic Design | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
|[[SVBR|SVBR-100]]<ref>http://www.gidropress.podolsk.ru/files/booklets/en/svbr75_100_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2011/2011-07-04-07-08-WS-NPTD/2_RUSSIA_SVBR_AKME-eng_Antysheva.pdf</ref> || 100 || [[Lead-cooled fast reactor|LFR]] || [[OKB Gidropress]], Russia || Detailed Design | |[[SVBR|SVBR-100]]<ref>http://www.gidropress.podolsk.ru/files/booklets/en/svbr75_100_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2011/2011-07-04-07-08-WS-NPTD/2_RUSSIA_SVBR_AKME-eng_Antysheva.pdf</ref> || 100 || [[Lead-cooled fast reactor|LFR]] || [[OKB Gidropress]], Russia || Detailed Design | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[Stable Salt Reactor|SSR]] || 37.5x8 || [[Molten salt reactor|MSR]] || Moltex Energy LLP,<ref> | + | | [[Stable Salt Reactor|SSR]] || 37.5x8 || [[Molten salt reactor|MSR]] || Moltex Energy LLP,<ref>http://moltexenergy.com/</ref> UK || Conceptual Design |
|- | |- | ||
| [[S-PRISM]] || 311 || [[Breeder reactor#Fast breeder reactor|FBR]] || [[GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy]] || Detailed Design | | [[S-PRISM]] || 311 || [[Breeder reactor#Fast breeder reactor|FBR]] || [[GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy]] || Detailed Design | ||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
| [[TerraPower]] || 10 || [[Traveling wave reactor|TWR]] || [[Intellectual Ventures]] - Bellevue, WA USA || Conceptual Design | | [[TerraPower]] || 10 || [[Traveling wave reactor|TWR]] || [[Intellectual Ventures]] - Bellevue, WA USA || Conceptual Design | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[U-Battery]] || 4 || [[Pebble-bed reactor|PBR]] || U-Battery consortium,{{efn|group=rln|[[Urenco Group]], [[Atkins (company)|Atkins]], [[Amec Foster Wheeler]], [[Laing O'Rourke]], [[Cammell Laird]], [[Advanced Manufacturing Park|Nuclear AMRC]]}} UK || Conceptual Design<ref> | + | | [[U-Battery]] || 4 || [[Pebble-bed reactor|PBR]] || U-Battery consortium,{{efn|group=rln|[[Urenco Group]], [[Atkins (company)|Atkins]], [[Amec Foster Wheeler]], [[Laing O'Rourke]], [[Cammell Laird]], [[Advanced Manufacturing Park|Nuclear AMRC]]}} UK || Conceptual Design<ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nuclear-micro-urenco-idUKBRE9170LW20130208</ref> |
|- | |- | ||
| [[VBER-300]] || 325 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[OKBM Afrikantov]], Russia || Licensing Stage | | [[VBER-300]] || 325 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[OKBM Afrikantov]], Russia || Licensing Stage | ||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
| [[Westinghouse SMR]] || 225 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Westinghouse Electric Company]], USA || Preliminary Design Completed | | [[Westinghouse SMR]] || 225 || [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] || [[Westinghouse Electric Company]], USA || Preliminary Design Completed | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[Xe-100]] || 35 || [[HTGR]] || X-energy,<ref> | + | | [[Xe-100]] || 35 || [[HTGR]] || X-energy,<ref>https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investments-advanced-nuclear-power-reactors-help-meet</ref> USA || Conceptual design development |
|- | |- | ||
| colspan=5|Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report. Not all IAEA reactors are listed yet. | | colspan=5|Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report. Not all IAEA reactors are listed yet. | ||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
===Economics=== | ===Economics=== | ||
| − | A key driver of SMRs are the alleged improved [[economies of scale]], compared to larger reactors, that stem from the ability to [[Prefabrication|prefabricate]] them in a [[Factory|manufacturing plant/factory]]. A key disadvantage, however, is that these improved economics can only be realised if the factory is built in the first place, and this is likely to require initial orders for an 40-70 units, which some experts think unlikely.<ref> | + | A key driver of SMRs are the alleged improved [[economies of scale]], compared to larger reactors, that stem from the ability to [[Prefabrication|prefabricate]] them in a [[Factory|manufacturing plant/factory]]. A key disadvantage, however, is that these improved economics can only be realised if the factory is built in the first place, and this is likely to require initial orders for an 40-70 units, which some experts think unlikely.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35863846|accessdate=3 April 2016</ref> |
===Licensing=== | ===Licensing=== | ||
| − | A major barrier is the licensing process, historically developed for large reactors, preventing the simple deployment of several identical units in different countries.<ref> | + | A major barrier is the licensing process, historically developed for large reactors, preventing the simple deployment of several identical units in different countries.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421500025</ref> In particular the US [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] process for [[nuclear licensing|licensing]] has focused mainly on large commercial reactors. The design and safety specifications, staffing requirements and licensing fees have all been geared toward reactors with an electrical output of more than 700MWe.<ref>Rysavy, C., Rhyne, S., Shaw, R. [http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/nuclearpower/docs/SMR-Dec_2009.pdf "Small Modular Reactors"], [http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/nuclearpower ''ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources – Special Committee on Nuclear Power'']</ref> |
| − | Licensing for SMRs has been an ongoing discussion. There was a workshop in October 2009 about licensing difficulties and another in June 2010, with a US congressional hearing in May 2010. With growing worries about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, added to problems with hydrocarbon supplies from foreign countries and accidents like the [[Deepwater Horizon explosion|BP oil rig explosion]] in the [[Gulf of Mexico]], many US government agencies are working to push the development of different licensing for SMRs.<ref> | + | Licensing for SMRs has been an ongoing discussion. There was a workshop in October 2009 about licensing difficulties and another in June 2010, with a US congressional hearing in May 2010. With growing worries about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, added to problems with hydrocarbon supplies from foreign countries and accidents like the [[Deepwater Horizon explosion|BP oil rig explosion]] in the [[Gulf of Mexico]], many US government agencies are working to push the development of different licensing for SMRs.<ref>http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/066.html</ref> |
===Other disadvantages=== | ===Other disadvantages=== | ||
Latest revision as of 06:42, 8 August 2021
 Small modular reactor    | |
|---|---|
 Nuclear reactor generating less than 500 MWe | |
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are a type of nuclear fission reactor which are smaller than conventional reactors, and manufactured at a plant and brought to a site to be fully constructed. Modular reactors allow for less on-site construction, increased containment efficiency, and heightened nuclear materials security. SMRs have been considered to be less expensive than traditional nuclear reactors, although critics have questioned the cost benefits when compared to solar energy, wind energy, and natural gas.
Small reactors are defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as those with an electricity output of less than 300 MW, although general opinion is that anything with an output of less than 500 MWe counts as a small reactor.[1][2]
Contents
History
Electricity was first generated from nuclear energy on December 20, 1951 in the high desert of south-eastern Idaho. The original electrical output was estimated at 45 kW.[3] Since then, reactors have grown much larger, with electrical outputs of over 1,400 MW.[4] Almost 50 years after the first nuclear energy was generated, applications for reactors with low electrical outputs are being introduced again.
According to a report prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the long-term goal of nuclear power is to "develop an economic, safe, environmentally acceptable, unlimited supply of energy for society."[5]
Many of these smaller reactor designs are being made "modular" – in other words, they will be manufactured and assembled at a central factory location. They are then sent to their new location where they can be installed with very little difficulty. These SMRs are particularly useful in remote locations where there is usually a deficiency of trained workers and a higher cost of shipping. Containment is more efficient, and proliferation concerns are lessened.[6] SMRs are also more flexible in that they do not necessarily need to be hooked into a large power grid, and can generally be attached to other modules to provide increased power supplies if necessary.
There may be some economic benefits to SMRs as well. While the small power output of an SMR means that electricity will cost more per MW than it would from a larger reactor, the initial cost of building the plant is much less than that of constructing a much more complex, non-modular, large nuclear plant. It makes an SMR a smaller-risk venture for power companies than other nuclear power plants.[7]
SMRs produce anywhere from ten to 300 megawatts, rather than the 1,000 megawatts produced by a typical reactor. Safety features include a natural cooling feature that can continue to function in the absence of external power; which was precisely the problem that was faced in Japan when the 2011 tsunami hit. The SMR also has the advantage of having underground placement of the reactors and spent-fuel storage pools, which provides more security. Smaller reactors would be easier to upgrade quickly, require a permanent workforce, and have better quality controls, just to name a few more advantages.[8]
Potential uses
SMRs could be used to power significant users of energy, such as large vessels or production facilities (e.g. water treatment/purification, or mines). Remote locations often have difficulty finding economically efficient, reliable energy sources. Small nuclear reactors have been considered as solutions to many energy problems in these hard-to-reach places. Cogeneration options have been presented in journals.[9]
Proposed sites
United Kingdom
In 2016 it was reported that the United Kingdom Government was assessing sites for deploying SMRs in Wales - including the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Sizewell, Sellafield and Wylfa are thought to be possibilities.[10]
United States
The Tennessee Valley Authority announced it will be submitting an Early Site Permit Application (ESPA) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in May 2016 for potentially siting an SMR at its Clinch River Site in Tennessee. This ESPA would be valid for up to 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness associated. TVA has not made a technology selection so this ESPA would be applicable for any of the light-water reactor SMR designs under development in the United States.[11]
The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced a teaming partnership with Energy Northwest to explore siting a NuScale Power reactor in Idaho, possibly on the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.[12]
The Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Galena, Alaska was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation intended to reduce the costs and environmental pollution required to power the town. It was a potential deployment for the Toshiba 4S reactor.
Operation
There are a variety of different types of SMR. Some are simplified versions of current reactors, others involve entirely new technologies.[13]
Fission and reactivity control
Nuclear power plants generate heat through nuclear fission. When an unstable nucleus (such as U235) absorbs an extra neutron, the atom will split, releasing large quantities of energy in the form of heat and radiation. The split atom will also release neutrons, which can then be absorbed by other unstable nuclei, causing a chain reaction. A sustained fission chain is necessary to generate nuclear power.
There are certain conditions that must be met for this chain reaction to occur. Certain fuel densities are necessary, or the neutrons won't impact a sufficient number of other unstable atoms before escaping the reactor. It is also easier for unstable nuclei to absorb neutrons when the neutrons are traveling at a certain speed. For U235, slower neutrons are more likely to cause a fission reaction. In order to slow down the neutrons in a reactor core, a moderator is used. Water is the most common moderator in use today. The neutrons are slowed down as they travel through the water. As the reaction speeds up and the temperature of the reactor increases, increasing the temperature of the moderator, the neutrons aren’t slowed down as effectively. This in turn reduces the rate of nuclear reactions inside the core, since the faster neutrons aren’t as easy to absorb. This effect, the negative temperature coefficient, makes the reactor inherently resistant to "excursion", or a sudden, uncontrolled increase in temperature.[14]
Some SMRs are "fast reactors" – they don’t use moderators to slow down the neutrons. The fuel requirements in this kind of reactor are a little different. The atoms have to absorb neutrons travelling at higher speeds. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuel types. Plutonium Pu239 is more likely to absorb a high-speed neutron than U235. However, the same negative temperature coefficient comes into play with fast nuclear reactors. Once the core heats up too much and the neutrons start to move faster, even the elements that would usually be able to absorb neutrons have trouble capturing them. Fission slows, and the reactor cannot run out of control.[15]
Another benefit of these fast reactors is that some of them are breeder reactors. As these reactors produce energy, they also let off enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A very common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of U238, which is the most easily found isotope of uranium. Once the U238 undergoes a neutron absorption reaction, it becomes Pu239, which can be removed from the reactor once it is time to refuel, and used as more fuel once it has been cleaned.[16]
Coolant
Currently, most reactors use water as a coolant. Light water is more common than heavy water (deuterium). New reactor designs are experimenting with different coolant types. Liquid metal reactors have been used both in the U.S. and other countries for some time. Gas-cooled reactors and Molten salt reactors are also being looked at as an option for very high temperature operation.[17][18]
Thermal/electrical generation
Traditionally, nuclear reactors use a coolant loop to heat water into steam, and use that steam to run turbines to generate electricity. There are some of the new gas-cooled reactor designs that are meant to drive a gas-powered turbine, rather than using a secondary water system. Also, there are some plants now that are used for their ability to generate thermal, rather than electric, energy. Nuclear reactor heat can be used in hydrogen production and myriad commercial operations.[17] Right now some of the possible nuclear heat applications include water desalination, heat for the production of petroleum products (extracting oil from tar sands, creating synthetic oil from coal, etc.), and the production of hydrogen for use in anything from car batteries to nitrogen fertilizers.[19]
Innovations
The electricity needs in remote locations are usually small and highly variable.[20] Large nuclear power plants are generally rather inflexible in their power generation capabilities. SMRs have a load-following design so that when electricity demands are low they will produce a lower amount of electricity.
Many SMRs are designed to use new fuel ideas that allow for higher burnup rates and longer lifecycles. Longer refueling intervals can decrease proliferation risks and lower chances of radiation escaping containment. For reactors in remote areas, accessibility can be troublesome, so longer fuel life can be very helpful.
Because of the lack of trained personnel available in remote areas, SMRs have to be inherently safe. Many larger plants have active safety features that require "intelligent input", or human controls. Many of these SMRs are being made using passive or inherent safety features. Passive safety features are engineered, but do not require outside input to work. A pressure release valve may have a spring that can be pushed back when the pressure gets too high. Inherent safety features require no engineered moving parts to work. They only depend on physical laws.[21]
Safety features
Since there are several different ideas for SMRs, there are many different safety features that can be involved. Coolant systems can use natural circulation – convection – so there are no pumps, no moving parts that could break down, and they keep removing decay heat after the reactor shuts down, so that the core doesn’t overheat and melt. Negative temperature coefficients in the moderators and the fuels keep the fission reactions under control, causing the fission reactions to slow down as temperature increases.[22]
Staffing
Several SMR developers are claiming that their designs will require fewer staff members to run the reactors because of the increased inherent and passive safety systems. Some of the reactors, like the Toshiba 4S, are reportedly designed to run with little supervision.[23]
Easier load following
Nuclear power plants have been historically deployed to cover the base load of the electricity demand.[24] Nowadays some nuclear power plants might perform daily load cycling operation (i.e. load following) between 50% and 100% of their rated power. With respect to the insertion of control rods or comparable action to reduce the nuclear power generation, a more efficient alternative might be the “Load Following by Cogeneration”, i.e. diverting the excess of power, respect to the electricity demand, to an auxiliary system. A suitable cogeneration system needs:
- to have a demand of electricity and/or heat in the region of 500 MWe–1.5 GWt;
- to meet a significant market demand;
- to have access to adequate input to process;
- to be flexible: cogeneration might operate at full load during the night when the request of electricity is low, and be turned off during the daytime.
From the economic standpoint, it is essential that the investment in the auxiliary system is profitable. District heating, desalination and hydrogen have been proposed as technically and economically feasible options. SMR can be ideal to do load following being used for desalination over the night.
Waste reduction
Many SMRs are fast reactors that are designed to have higher fuel burnup rates, reducing the amount of waste produced. At higher neutron energy more fission products can be usually tolerated. As mentioned before, some SMRs are also breeder reactors, which not only "burn" fuels like U235, but will also convert fissionable materials like U238 (which occurs naturally at a much higher concentration than U235 into usable fuels.[16]
Some reactors are designed to run on alternative thorium fuel cycle, which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to uranium cycle.[25]
There has been some interest in the concept of a traveling wave reactor, a new type of breeder reactor that uses the fuel it breeds. The idea would eliminate the need to remove the spent fuel and "clean" it before reusing any newly bred fuel.[26]
Non-proliferation
The use of nuclear materials to create weapons is always a concern. Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% U235. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature.
As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically small, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than existing nuclear plants. This is both at more sites in existing nuclear power states, such as old fossil fuel generation plants, and in more countries that previously did not have nuclear plants. It is also intended that SMR sites have much lower staffing levels than current nuclear plants. Because of the increased number of sites, with fewer staff, physical protection and security becomes an increased challenge which could increase proliferation risks.[27][28]
Some SMR designs are intended to have lifetime cores so the SMRs do not need refuelling. This improves proliferation resistance by not requiring any on-site nuclear fuel handling. But it also means that there will be large inventories of fissile material within the SMRs to sustain a long lifetime, which could make it a more attractive proliferation target. A 200 MWe 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium toward the end of its working life.[28]
Light-water reactors designed to run on the thorium fuel cycle offer increased proliferation resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle, though molten salt reactors have a substantial risk.
The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation.
Reactor designs
There are numerous new reactor designs being generated all over the world. A small selection of the current SMR designs is listed below.
| Name | Gross power (MWe) | Type | Producer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4S | 10–50 | FNR | Toshiba, Japan | Detailed Design |
| ABV-6 | 6–9 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Detailed Design |
| ANGSTREM | 6 | LFR | OKB Gidropress, Russia | Conceptual Design |
| mPower | 195 | PWR | Babcock & Wilcox, USA | (Cancelled March 2017) |
| BREST-OD-300[30] | 300 | LFR | Atomenergoprom, Russia | Detailed Design |
| CAREM | 27–30 | PWR | CNEA & INVAP, Argentina | Under Construction |
| EGP-6 | 11 | RBMK | IPPE & Teploelektroproekt Design, Russia | Operating (not actively marketed due to legacy design, will be taken out of operation permanently in 2019) |
| ELENA[lower-alpha 1] | 0.068 | PWR | Kurchatov Institute, Russia | Conceptual Design |
| Flexblue | 160 | PWR | Areva TA / DCNS group, France | Conceptual Design |
| Fuji MSR | 200 | MSR | International Thorium Molten Salt Forum (ITMSF), Japan | Conceptual Design(?) |
| GT-MHR | 285 | HTGR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Conceptual Design Completed |
| G4M | 25 | LFR | Gen4 Energy, USA | Conceptual Design |
| IMSR400 | 185–192 | MSR | Terrestrial Energy, Inc.,[33] Canada | Conceptual Design |
| IRIS | 335 | PWR | Westinghouse-led, international | Basic Design |
| KLT-40S | 35 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Under Construction |
| MHR-100 | 25–87 | HTGR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Conceptual Design |
| MHR-T[lower-alpha 2] | 4х205.5 | HTGR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Conceptual Design |
| MRX | 30–100 | PWR | JAERI, Japan | Conceptual Design |
| NP-300 | 100–300 | PWR | Areva TA, France | Conceptual Design |
| NuScale | 45–50 | LWR | NuScale Power LLC, USA | Licensing Stage |
| PBMR-400 | 165 | HTGR | Eskom, South Africa, et al. | Detailed Design |
| RITM-200 | 50 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Under Construction |
| SMART | 100 | PWR | KAERI, S. Korea | Licensed |
| SMR-160 | 160 | PWR | Holtec International, USA | Conceptual Design |
| SVBR-100[34][35] | 100 | LFR | OKB Gidropress, Russia | Detailed Design |
| SSR | 37.5x8 | MSR | Moltex Energy LLP,[36] UK | Conceptual Design |
| S-PRISM | 311 | FBR | GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy | Detailed Design |
| TerraPower | 10 | TWR | Intellectual Ventures - Bellevue, WA USA | Conceptual Design |
| U-Battery | 4 | PBR | U-Battery consortium,[lower-alpha 3] UK | Conceptual Design[37] |
| VBER-300 | 325 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov, Russia | Licensing Stage |
| VK-300 | 250 | BWR | Atomstroyexport, Russia | Detailed Design |
| VVER-300 | 300 | BWR | OKB Gidropress, Russia | Conceptual Design |
| Westinghouse SMR | 225 | PWR | Westinghouse Electric Company, USA | Preliminary Design Completed |
| Xe-100 | 35 | HTGR | X-energy,[38] USA | Conceptual design development |
| Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report. Not all IAEA reactors are listed yet. | ||||
- ↑ If completed, ELENA would be the smallest commercial nuclear reactor ever built.[31][32]
- ↑ Multi-unit complex based on the GT-MHR reactor design, designed primarily for hydrogen production.
- ↑ Urenco Group, Atkins, Amec Foster Wheeler, Laing O'Rourke, Cammell Laird, Nuclear AMRC
Disadvantages and issues
Economics
A key driver of SMRs are the alleged improved economies of scale, compared to larger reactors, that stem from the ability to prefabricate them in a manufacturing plant/factory. A key disadvantage, however, is that these improved economics can only be realised if the factory is built in the first place, and this is likely to require initial orders for an 40-70 units, which some experts think unlikely.[39]
Licensing
A major barrier is the licensing process, historically developed for large reactors, preventing the simple deployment of several identical units in different countries.[40] In particular the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing has focused mainly on large commercial reactors. The design and safety specifications, staffing requirements and licensing fees have all been geared toward reactors with an electrical output of more than 700MWe.[41]
Licensing for SMRs has been an ongoing discussion. There was a workshop in October 2009 about licensing difficulties and another in June 2010, with a US congressional hearing in May 2010. With growing worries about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, added to problems with hydrocarbon supplies from foreign countries and accidents like the BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, many US government agencies are working to push the development of different licensing for SMRs.[42]
Other disadvantages
SMRs themselves do not necessarily combat all of the key criticisms levelled at nuclear power generally, for instance the environmental effects of nuclear power and indeed a greater number of sites could exacerbate another - nuclear proliferation.
Related Document
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:The Theresa May government's nuclear obsession is a betrayal of democracy | Article | 19 December 2017 | Oliver Tickell | So here's the key question: how can a government that has declared in its election manifesto its commitment to delivering the lowest cost power in Europe, and its utter impartiality in deciding between any one power generation technology over any other, justify an obsessively pro-nuclear energy policy that could land every household in Britain with a £12,600 nuclear tax? |
References
- ↑ Radiation & Transport Safety Section, "Status of Small Reactor Designs Without On-Site Fueling", International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- ↑ Carlson, J. "Fast Neutron Reactors", World Nuclear Association
- ↑ Stacy, S. "The Reactor Zoo Goes Critical", Proving the Principle
- ↑ Atteberry, J. "Five Biggest Nuclear Reactors", How Stuff Works
- ↑ http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1991/3445603211254.pdf
- ↑ "Small Modular Reactors", Department of Energy – Office of Nuclear Energy
- ↑ Black, R. "Bringing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to Domestic Markets: DOE Presentation to Foundation for Nuclear Studies", Nuclear Foundation
- ↑ [Moniz, Ernest. "Why We Still Need Nuclear Power: Making Clean Energy Safe and Affordable." Foreign Affairs 90, no. 6 (November 2011): 83-94.]
- ↑ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701630292X
- ↑ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/02/mini-nuclear-power-stations-in-uk-towns-move-one-step-closer/
- ↑ https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Technology-Innovation/Small-Modular-Reactors
- ↑ http://www.uamps.com/index.php/38-items/24-carbon-free-power-project
- ↑ INEA, NEA, IEA. "Innovative Nuclear Reactor Development: Opportunities for International Co-operation", OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
- ↑ DOE-HDBK-1019 1993
- ↑ DOE-HDBK-1019 1993, p. 50
- ↑ a b Carlson, J. "Fast Neutron Reactors", World Nuclear Association
- ↑ a b Wilson, P.D. "Nuclear Power Reactors", World Nuclear Association
- ↑ http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/flibe-energy-liquid-flouride-thorium.html
- ↑ "Nuclear Process Heat for Industry", World Nuclear Association
- ↑ Report to Congress 2001, p. 8
- ↑ "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors", World Nuclear Association
- ↑ DOE-HDBK-1019 1993, pp. 23–29
- ↑ "The Galena Project Technical Publications", pg. 22, Burns & Roe
- ↑ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701630292X
- ↑ Section 5.3, WASH 1097 "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors", available as a PDF from Liquid-Halide Reactor Documents database: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/
- ↑ Wald, M. "TR10: Traveling Wave Reactor", Technology Review
- ↑ http://bnrc.berkeley.edu/documents/forum-2010/Presentations/S-Session-III/Dominique_Greneche_NuclearConsulting_Pres.pdf
- ↑ a b https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/slides/2014/20141105/glaser-11-05-14.pdf
- ↑ IAEA Report
- ↑ https://smr.inl.gov/Document.ashx?path=DOCS%2FSMR+technologies%2FBREST%2FDesign_features_of+BREST+Reactors.pdf
- ↑ http://www.iaea.org/nuclearenergy/nuclearpower/Downloadable/SMR/files/4_UPDATED_STATUS_ON_GLOBAL_SMR_DEVELOPMENT__as_of_September_2014.pdf
- ↑ http://www.iaea.org/nuclearenergy/nuclearpower/Downloadable/SMR/files/IAEA_SMR_Booklet_2014.pdf
- ↑ http://terrestrialenergy.com/
- ↑ http://www.gidropress.podolsk.ru/files/booklets/en/svbr75_100_en.pdf
- ↑ http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2011/2011-07-04-07-08-WS-NPTD/2_RUSSIA_SVBR_AKME-eng_Antysheva.pdf
- ↑ http://moltexenergy.com/
- ↑ http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nuclear-micro-urenco-idUKBRE9170LW20130208
- ↑ https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investments-advanced-nuclear-power-reactors-help-meet
- ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35863846%7Caccessdate=3 April 2016
- ↑ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421500025
- ↑ Rysavy, C., Rhyne, S., Shaw, R. "Small Modular Reactors", ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources – Special Committee on Nuclear Power
- ↑ http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/066.html
This page imported content from Wikipedia on 21 December 2017.Wikipedia is not affiliated with Wikispooks. Original page source here
