_(20848048201).jpg.webp)
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a proposed class of nuclear fission reactors, smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, which can be built in one location (such as a factory), then shipped, commissioned, and operated at a separate site. The term SMR refers to the size, capacity and modular construction only, not to the reactor type and the nuclear process which is applied. Designs range from scaled down versions of existing designs to generation IV designs. Both thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors have been proposed, along with molten salt and gas cooled reactor models.[1]
SMRs are typically anticipated to have an electrical power output of less than 300 MWe (electric) or less than 1000 MWth (thermal). Many SMR proposals rely on a manufacturing-centric model, requiring many deployments to secure economies of unit production large enough to achieve economic viability. Some SMR designs, typically those using Generation IV technologies, aim to secure additional economic advantage through improvements in electrical generating efficiency from much higher temperature steam generation. Ideally, modular reactors will reduce on-site construction, increase containment efficiency, and are claimed to enhance safety. The greater safety should come via the use of passive safety features that operate without human intervention, a concept already implemented in some conventional nuclear reactor types. SMRs should also reduce staffing versus conventional nuclear reactors,[2][3] and are claimed to have the ability to bypass financial and safety barriers that inhibit the construction of conventional reactors.[3][4]
As of 2023, there are more than 80 modular reactor designs under development in 19 countries, and the first SMR units are in operation in Russia and China.[5] The floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov (operating in Pevek in Russia's Far East) is, as of October 2022, the first operating prototype in the world. The first unit of China’s pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor HTR-PM was connected to the grid in 2021.[5]
SMRs differ in terms of staffing, security and deployment time.[6] US government studies to evaluate SMR-associated risks have slowed licensing.[7][8][9] One concern with SMRs is preventing nuclear proliferation.[10][11]
Background
Economic factors of scale mean that nuclear reactors tend to be large, to such an extent that size itself becomes a limiting factor. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster caused a major set-back for the nuclear industry, with worldwide suspension of development, cutting down of funding, and closure of reactor plants.
In response, a new strategy was introduced aiming at building smaller reactors, which are faster to realize, safer, and at lower cost for a single reactor. Despite the loss of scale advantages and considerably less power output, funding was expected to be easier thanks to the introduction of modular construction and projects with expected shorter timescales. The generic SMR proposal is to swap the economies of unit scale for the economies of unit mass production.[12][13]
Proponents claim that SMRs are less expensive due to the use of standardized modules that can be produced off-site.[14] SMRs do, however, also have some economic disadvantages.[15] Several studies suggest that the overall costs of SMRs are comparable with those of conventional large reactors. Moreover, extremely limited information about SMR modules transportation has been published.[16] Critics say that modular building will only be cost-effective at high quantities of the same types, given the still remaining high costs for each SMR.[17] A high market share is needed to obtain sufficient orders.
Proponents say that nuclear energy with proven technology is safe; the nuclear industry contends that smaller size will make SMRs even safer than conventional plants. Critics say that more small reactors pose a higher risk, requiring more transportation of nuclear fuel and increased generation of waste. SMRs require new designs with new technology, the safety of which has yet to be proven.
Until 2020, no truly modular SMRs had been built.[18] In May 2020, the first prototype of a floating nuclear power plant with two 30 MWe reactors - the type KLT-40 - started operation in Pevek, Russia.[19] This concept is based on the design of nuclear icebreakers.[20] The operation of the first commercial land-based, 125 MWe demonstration reactor ACP100 (Linglong One) is due to start in China by the end of 2026.[21]
Designs

SMRs are envisioned in multiple designs. Some are simplified versions of current reactors, others involve entirely new technologies.[22] All proposed SMRs use nuclear fission with designs including thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors.
Thermal-neutron reactors
Thermal-neutron reactors rely on a moderator to slow neutrons and generally use 235
U as fissile material. Most conventional operating reactors are of this type.
Fast reactors
Fast reactors don't use moderators. Instead they rely on the fuel to absorb higher speed neutrons. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuels. E.g., 239
Pu is more likely to absorb a high-speed neutron than 235
U.
Fast reactors can be breeder reactors. These reactors release enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of 238
U, the most easily found isotope. Once the 238
U undergoes a neutron absorption reaction, it becomes 239
Pu, which can be removed from the reactor during refueling, and subsequently used as fuel.[23]
Technologies
Coolant
Conventional reactors typically use water as a coolant.[24] SMRs may use water, liquid metal, gas and molten salt as coolants.[25][26] Coolant type is determined based on the reactor type, reactor design, and the chosen application. Large-rated reactors primarily use light water as coolant, allowing for this cooling method to be easily applied to SMRs. Helium is often elected as a gas coolant for SMRs because it yields a high plant thermal efficiency and supplies a sufficient amount of reactor heat. Sodium, lead, and lead-bismuth are common liquid metal coolants of choice for SMRs. There was a large focus on sodium during early work on large-rated reactors which has since carried over to SMRs to be a prominent choice as a liquid metal coolant.[27] SMRs have lower cooling water requirements, which expands the number of places a SMR could be built, including remote areas typically incorporating mining and desalination.[28]
Thermal/electrical generation
Some gas-cooled reactor designs could drive a gas-powered turbine, rather than boiling water, such that thermal energy can be used directly. Heat could also be used in hydrogen production and other commercial operations,[25] such as desalination and the production of petroleum products (extracting oil from oil sands, creating synthetic oil from coal, etc.).[29]
Load following
SMR designs are generally expected to provide base load power; some proposed designs can adjust their output based on demand.
Another approach, especially for SMRs that can provide high temperature heat, is to adopt cogeneration, maintaining consistent output, while diverting otherwise unneeded heat to an auxiliary use. District heating, desalination and hydrogen production have been proposed as cogeneration options.[30]
Overnight desalination requires sufficient freshwater storage to enable water to be delivered at times other than when it is produced.[31] Membrane and thermal are the two principal categories of desalination technology. The membrane desalination process uses only electricity and is employed the most out of the two technologies. In the thermal process, the feed water stream is evaporated in different stages with continuous decreases in pressure between the stages. The thermal process primarily uses thermal energy and does not include the intermediate conversion of thermal power to electricity. Thermal desalination technology is further divided into two principal technologies: the Multi Stage Flash distillation (MSF) and the Multi Effect Desalination (MED).[32]
Nuclear safety
A report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) considering 136 different historical and current reactors and SMR concepts stated: "Overall, SMRs could potentially achieve safety advantages compared to power plants with a larger power output, as they have a lower radioactive inventory per reactor and aim for a higher safety level especially through simplifications and an increased use of passive systems. In contrast, however, various SMR concepts also favour reduced regulatory requirements, for example, with regard to the required degree of redundancy or diversity in safety systems. Some developers even demand that current requirements be waived, for example in the area of internal accident management or with reduced planning zones, or even a complete waiver of external emergency protection planning. Since the safety of a reactor plant depends on all of these factors, based on the current state of knowledge it is not possible to state, that a higher safety level is achieved by SMR concepts in principle."[33][34][15]
Negative temperature coefficients in the moderators and the fuels keep the fission reactions under control, causing the reaction to slow as temperature increases.[35]
Some SMR designs proposes cooling systems only based on thermoconvection – natural circulation – to eliminate cooling pumps that could break down. Convection can keep removing decay heat after reactor shutdown. However, some SMRs may need an active cooling system to back up the passive system, increasing cost.[36]
Some SMR designs feature an integral design of which the primary reactor core, steam generator and the pressurizer are integrated within the sealed reactor vessel. This integrated design allows for the reduction of a possible accident as contamination leaks could be contained. In comparison to larger reactors having numerous components outside the reactor vessel, this feature increases the safety by decreasing the risks of an uncontained accident. Some SMR designs also envisage to install the reactor and the spent-fuel storage pools underground.[37]
Radioactive waste
The backend of the nuclear fuel cycle of SMR is a complex and challenging issue remaining disputed. The quantity and the radiotoxicity of the radioactive waste produced by SMR mainly depend on their design and the related fuel cycle. As the notion of SMR encompasses a broad spectrum a nuclear reactor types, no simple answer can be easily given to the question. SMR may comprise small light water reactors of third generation as well as small fast neutron reactors of fourth generation.
Often, the startup companies developing unconventional SMR prototypes advocate waste reduction as an advantage of the proposed solution and even sometimes claim that their technology could eliminate the need for a deep geological repository to dispose of high-level and long-lived radioactive waste. This is especially the case for companies studying fast neutron reactors of 4th generation (molten salts reactors, metal-cooled reactors (sodium-cooled fast reactor, or lead-cooled fast reactor).
Fast breeder reactors "burn" 235
U (0.7 % of natural uranium), but also convert fertile materials such as 238
U (99.3 % of natural uranium) into fissile 239
Pu that can be used as nuclear fuel.[23]
The traveling wave reactor proposed by TerraPower is aimed to immediately "burn" the fuel that it breeds without requiring its removal from the reactor core and its further reprocessing.[38]
The design of some SMR reactors is based on the thorium fuel cycle, which is considered by their promotors as a way to reduce the long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to the uranium cycle.[39] However, using the thorium cycle also presents big operational challenges because of the production and the use of 232
U and long-lived fertile 233
U, both radioisotopes emitting strong gamma rays. So, the presence of these radionuclides seriously complicates the radiation shielding of the fresh nuclear fuel and the long-term storage and disposal of their spent nuclear fuel.
A study of 2022 made by Krall, Macfarlane and Ewing is more critical and reports that some types of SMR could produce more waste per unit of output power than conventional reactors, in some cases more than 5 x the number of spent fuel per kilowatt, and as much as 35 x for other waste produced by neutron activation, such as activated steel and graphite.[40][41][42][43]
These authors have identified the neutron leakage as the first issue for SMRs because they have a higher surface area with respect to their core volume. They have calculated that the neutron leakage rates are much higher for SMRs, because in smaller reactor cores, emitted neutrons have fewer chances to interact with the fissile atoms present in the fuel and to produce nuclear fission. Instead, neutrons exit the reactor core without interacting with the nuclear fuel, and they are absorbed outside the core by the materials used for the neutron reflectors and the shielding (thermal and gamma shields), turning them as radioactive waste (activated steel and graphite).
Reactor designs using liquid metal coolants (molten sodium, lead, lead-bismuth eutectic, LBE) also become radioactive and contains activated impurities.
Another issue pinpointed by Krall et al. (2022)[43] related to the higher neutron leakage in SMR is that a lower fraction of their nuclear fuel is consumed, leading to a lower burnup and to more fissile materials left over in their spent fuel, therefore increasing the waste volume. To sustain the nuclear chain reactions in the core of a smaller reactor, an alternative is to use nuclear fuel more enriched in 235
U. This could increase the risks of nuclear proliferation and could require more stringent safeguard measures to prevent it.
If higher concentrations of fissile materials subsist in the spent fuel, the critical mass needed to sustain a nuclear chain reaction is also lower. As a direct consequence, the number of spent fuels present in a waste canister will also be lower and a larger number of canisters and overpacks will be necessary to avoid criticality accidents and to guarantee nuclear criticality safety in a deep geological repository. This also contributes to increase the total waste volume and the number of disposal galleries in a geological repository.
Given the potential technical and economical importance of SMRs to supply zero-carbon electrical energy needed to fight climate change and the long-term and social relevance of the study to adequately manage and dispose of radioactive waste without imposing a negative burden onto the future generations, the publication of Krall et al. (2022) in the prestigious PNAS journal has attracted many reactions ranging from criticisms on the quality of their data and hypotheses[44] to international debates on radioactive waste produced by SMRs and their decommissioning.[45]
In an interwiew with François Diaz-Maurin, the associate editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lindsay Krall, the lead author of the study and a former MacArthur postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) answered to questions and criticisms, amongst others, those raised by the NuScale reactor company.[46] One of the main concerns Krall expressed in this interview is that:
- "There’s definitely a disconnect between the people working on the back end of the fuel cycle—especially with geologic repository development—and those actually designing reactors. And, there is not a lot of motivation for these reactor designers to think about the geologic disposal aspects because the NRC’s new reactor design certification application does not have a chapter on geologic disposal..."
The critical study of Krall et al. (2022) has the merit to have raised relevant questions that cannot be ignored by reactor designers, or decision-makers, and to have triggered open and fresh discussions on important outcomes for SMRs and radwaste management in general. Amongst the various types of SMR projects initiated today by many start-up companies, only those correctly addressing these questions and really contributing to minimize the radioactive waste they produce have a chance to be supported by the public and governmental organisations (nuclear safety authorities and radioactive waste management organisations) and their research to be funded by long-term national policies.
The high diversity of SMR reactors and their respective fuel cycles may also require more diverse waste management strategy to recycle, or to safely dispose, their nuclear waste.[40][43] A larger number of spent fuel types will be more difficult to manage than only one type as it is presently the case with light water reactors only.
As previously stressed by Krall and Macfarlane (2018),[47] some types of SMR spent fuels, or coolants, (highly reactive and corrosive uranium fluoride (UF4) from molten salt reactors, or pyrophoric sodium from liquid metal cooled fast breeders) cannot be directly disposed of in a deep geologic repository because of their chemical reactivity in the underground environment (deep clay formations, crystalline rocks, or rock salt). To avoid to exacerbate spent fuel storage and disposal issues it will be mandatory to reprocess and to condition them in an appropriate and safe way before final geological disposal.
A report by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) found that extensive interim storage and fuel transports are still required for SMRs. A deep geological repository is still unavoidable in any case because of the presence of highly mobile long-lived fission products that, due to their too low neutron cross section, cannot be efficiently transmuted, as it is the case with dose-dominating radionuclides such as 129
I, 99
Tc and 79
Se (soluble anions that are not sorbed onto the negatively charged minerals and are not retarded in geological media).[15]
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear proliferation, or the use of nuclear materials to create weapons, is a concern for small modular reactors. As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically smaller, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than conventional plants.[48] SMRs are expected to substantially reduce staffing levels. The combination creates physical protection and security concerns.[10][24]
SMRs can be designed to use unconventional fuels allowing for higher burnup and longer fuel cycles.[4] Longer refueling intervals could contribute to decrease the proliferation risks. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the mixture of fission products and fissile materials is highly radioactive and requires special handling, preventing casual theft.
Contrasting to conventional large reactors, SMRs can be adapted to be installed in a sealed underground chamber; therefore, "reducing the vulnerability of the reactor to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster".[37] New SMR designs enhance the proliferation resistance, such as those from the reactor design company Gen4. These models of SMR offer a solution capable of operating sealed underground for the life of the reactor following installation.[37][49]
Some SMR designs are designed for one-time fueling. This improves proliferation resistance by eliminating on-site nuclear fuel handling and means that the fuel can be sealed within the reactor. However, this design requires large amounts of fuel, which could make it a more attractive target. A 200 MWe 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium at end of life.[24]
Furthermore, many SMRs offer the ability to go periods of greater than 10 years without requiring any form of refueling therefore improving the proliferation resistance as compared to conventional large reactors of which entail refueling every 18–24 months[37]
Light-water reactors designed to run on thorium offer increased proliferation resistance compared to the conventional uranium cycle, though molten salt reactors have a substantial risk.[50][51]
SMRs are transported from the factories without fuel, as they are fueled on the ultimate site, except some microreactors.[52] This implies an independent transport of the fuel to the site and therefore increases the risk of nuclear proliferation.
Licensing process
Licensing is an essential process required to guarantee the safety of a new nuclear installation. It is based on an independent analysis and review of all structures, systems and components critical for the nuclear safety. Licensing is based on safety files elaborated by the fabricant and the exploitant of the installation. The main licensing process applied for existing commercial reactors is essentially that of light water reactors (PWR and BWR). It was developed in the years 1960 and 1970 during the construction of the nuclear reactor fleet currently in service. Some adaptations of the licensing process have been requested to better correspond to the specific characteristics and needs of the deployment of SMR units.[53] In particular, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing has focused mainly on conventional reactors. Design and safety specifications, human and organizational factors (including staffing requirements) have been developed for reactors with electrical output of more than 700 MWe.[54]
To ensure adequate guidelines for the nuclear safety, while helping the licensing process, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has encouraged the creation of a central licensing system for SMRs.[55] A workshop in October 2009 and another in June 2010 considered the topic, followed by an US congressional hearing in May 2010.
Several US agencies (NRC, DOE...) are working to define SMR licensing. The challenge of facilitating the development of SMRs is to prevent a weakening of the safety regulations: the risk of lightened regulations adopted more rapidly is to lower the safety characteristics of SMRs.[56][57] While deploying identical systems built in manufacturing plants with an improved quality control can be considered an advantage, SMRs remain nuclear reactors with a very high energy density and their smaller size is not per se an intrinsic guarantee for a better safety. Any severe accident with external radioactive contamination release could have potential serious consequences not so different from that of a large LWR reactor. It would also probably signify the final rejection of nuclear energy by the public and the end of the nuclear industry. The potential "proliferation" of large SMR fleets and the high diversity of their design also complicate the licensing process. The nuclear safety cannot be sacrificed for industrial or economical interests and the risk of nuclear accident increases with the number of reactors in service, small or large unit.
The U.S. Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program was expected to help license and build two prototype SMRs during the 2020s, with up to $4 billion of government funding.[58]
Flexibility
Small nuclear reactors, in comparison to conventional nuclear power plants, offer advantages related to the flexibility of their modular construction.[37] It is possible to incrementally connect additional units to the grid in the event electrical load increases. Additionally, this flexibility in a standardized SMRs design revolving around modularity allows for rapid production at a decreasing cost following the completion of the first reactor on site.[37][49]
The hypothesised flexibility and modularity of SMR allows additional power generation capability to be installed at existing power plants. A site can host three or four SMRs, one going off-line for refueling while the other reactors stay online as for conventional larger reactors.[37]
When electrical energy is not needed, some SMR designs foresee the direct use of thermal energy, minimizing so the energy loss. This includes "desalination, industrial processes, hydrogen production, shale oil recovery, and district heating" of which a conventional large reactor is not capable.[37][59]
Economics
A key driver of interest in SMRs is the claimed economies of scale in production, due to volume manufacture in an offsite factory. Some studies instead find the capital cost of SMRs to be equivalent to larger reactors.[60] Substantial capital is needed to construct the factory - ameliorating that cost requires significant volume, estimated to be 40–70 units.[61][62]
Another potential advantage is that a future power station using SMRs can begin with a single module and expand by adding modules as demand grows. This reduces startup costs associated with conventional designs.[63] Some SMRs also have a load-following design such that they can produce less electricity when demand is low.
According to a 2014 study of electricity production in decentralized microgrids, the total cost of using SMRs for electricity generation would be significantly lower compared to the total cost of offshore wind, solar thermal, biomass, and solar photovoltaic electricity generation plants.[64]
Construction costs per SMR reactor were claimed in 2016 to be less than that for a conventional nuclear plant, while exploitation costs may be higher for SMRs due to low scale economics and the higher number of reactors. SMR staff operating costs per unit output can be as much as 190% higher than the fixed operating cost of fewer large reactors.[65] Modular building is a very complex process and there is "extremely limited information about SMR modules transportation", according to a 2019 report.[16]
A production cost calculation done by the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), taking into account economies of scale and learning effects from the nuclear industry, suggests that an average of 3,000 SMR would have to be produced before SMR production would be worthwhile. This is because the construction costs of SMRs are relatively higher than those of large nuclear power plants due to the low electrical output.[66]
In 2017, an Energy Innovation Reform Project study of eight companies looked at reactor designs with capacity between 47.5 MWe and 1,648 MWe.[67] The study reported average capital cost of $3,782/kW, average operating cost total of $21/MWh and levelized cost of electricity of $60/MWh.
In 2020, Energy Impact Center founder Bret Kugelmass claimed that thousands of SMRs could be built in parallel, "thus reducing costs associated with long borrowing times for prolonged construction schedules and reducing risk premiums currently linked to large projects."[68] GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Executive Vice President Jon Ball agreed, saying the modular elements of SMRs would also help reduce costs associated with extended construction times.[68]
Estimated target electricity generation price was $89/MWh in 2023, an increase from $58/MWh in 2021, for the U.S. commercial deployment of SMRs at Idaho National Laboratory of six NuScale 77 MWe reactors. This cost increase contributed to the decision to cancel the project.[69] Before its cancelation, the project had $1.355 billion of U.S. government support plus an estimated $30/MWh generation subsidy from the 2020 Inflation Reduction Act.[70][71][72]
List of reactor designs
Numerous reactor designs have been proposed. Notable SMR designs:
Design Licensing Under construction Operational Cancelled Retired
The stated power refers to the capacity of one reactor unless specified otherwise.
Name | Gross power (MWe) | Type | Producer | Country | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4S | 10–50 | SFR | Toshiba | Japan | Detailed design |
ABV-6 | 6–9 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov | Russia | Detailed design |
ACP100 Linglong One | 125 | PWR | China National Nuclear Corporation | China | Under construction[74] |
TMSR-LF1 | 10[75] | MSR | China National Nuclear Corporation | China | Under construction |
AP300[76] | 300 | PWR | Westinghouse Electric Company | United States | Detailed design |
ARC-100 | 100 | SFR | ARC Nuclear | Canada | Design: Vendor design review.[77] One unit planned for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in December 2019.[78] |
MMR | 5-15 | HTGR | Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation | United States/Canada | Licensing stage[79] |
ANGSTREM[80] | 6 | LFR | OKB Gidropress | Russia | Conceptual design |
B&W mPower | 195 | PWR | Babcock & Wilcox | United States | Cancelled in March 2017 |
BANDI-60 | 60 | PWR | KEPCO | South Korea | Detailed design[81] |
BREST-OD-300[82] | 300 | LFR | Atomenergoprom | Russia | Under construction[83] |
BWRX-300[84] | 300 | BWR | GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy | United States/Japan | Licensing stage |
CAREM | 27–30 | PWR | CNEA | Argentina | Under construction |
Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner | 50 | MSR | Copenhagen Atomics | Denmark | Conceptual design |
HTMR-100 | 35 | GTMHR | Stratek Global | South Africa | Conceptual design[74] |
HTR-PM | 210 (2 reactors one turbine) | HTGR | China Huaneng | China | One reactor operational. Station connected to the grid in December 2021.[85] |
ELENA[86] | 0.068 | PWR | Kurchatov Institute | Russia | Conceptual design |
Energy Well[87] | 8.4 | MSR | cs:Centrum výzkumu Řež[88] | Czechia | Conceptual design |
eVinci[89] | 5 | HPR | Westinghouse Electric Company | United States | Licensing stage |
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 | GTMHR | OKBM Afrikantov | Russia | Conceptual design completed |
G4M | 25 | LFR | Gen4 Energy | United States | Conceptual design |
GT-MHR | 50 | GTMHR | General Atomics, Framatom | United States/France | Conceptual design |
IMSR400 | 195 (x2) | MSR | Terrestrial Energy[90] | Canada | Detailed design |
TMSR-500 | 500 | MSR | ThorCon[91] | Indonesia | Conceptual design |
IRIS | 335 | PWR | Westinghouse-led | international | Design (Basic) |
KLT-40S Akademik Lomonosov | 70 | PWR | OKBM Afrikantov | Russia | Operating, May 2020[19] (floating plant) |
Last Energy | 20 | PWR | Last Energy | United States | Conceptual design[92] |
MCSFR | 50–1000 | MCSFR | Elysium Industries | United States | Conceptual design |
MHR-100 | 25–87 | HTGR | OKBM Afrikantov | Russia | Conceptual design |
MHR-T[lower-alpha 1] | 205.5 (x4) | 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 | 77 | PWR | NuScale Power LLC | United States | Earlier 50 MWe version licensed[93] |
Nuward | 170 | PWR | consortium | France | Conceptual design, construction anticipated in 2030[94][95] |
OPEN100 | 100 | PWR | Energy Impact Center | United States | Conceptual design[96] |
PBMR-400 | 165 | HTGR | Eskom | South Africa | Cancelled. Postponed indefinitely.[7] |
Rolls-Royce SMR | 470 | PWR | Rolls-Royce | United Kingdom | Licensing stage[97] |
SEALER[98][99] | 55 | LFR | LeadCold | Sweden | Design stage |
SMART | 100 | PWR | KAERI | South Korea | Licensed |
SMR-160 | 160 | PWR | Holtec International | United States | Conceptual design |
SVBR-100[100][101] | 100 | LFR | OKB Gidropress | Russia | Detailed design |
SSR-W | 300–1000 | MSR | Moltex Energy[102] | United Kingdom | Design: Phase 1 vendor design review.[103] One unit approved for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in July 2018.[104] |
S-PRISM | 311 | FBR | GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy | United States/Japan | Detailed design |
U-Battery | 4 | HTGR | U-Battery consortium[lower-alpha 2] | United Kingdom | Cancelled. Design archived[105] |
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 | United States | Cancelled. Preliminary design completed.[106] |
Xe-100 | 80 | HTGR | X-energy[107] | United States | Conceptual design development |
Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report.[73] Not all IAEA reactors are listed there are added yet and some are added (anno 2021) that were not yet listed in the now dated IAEA report. |
- ↑ Multi-unit complex based on the GT-MHR reactor design
- ↑ Urenco Group in collaboration with Jacobs and Kinectrics
Siting/infrastructure
SMRs are expected to require less land, e.g., the 470 MWe 3-loop Rolls-Royce SMR reactor takes 40,000 m2 (430,000 sq ft), 10% of that needed for a traditional plant.[108] This unit is too large to meet the definition of a small modular reactor and will require more on-site construction, which calls into question the claimed benefits of SMRs. The firm is targeting a 500-day construction time.[109]
Electricity needs in remote locations are usually small and variable, making them suitable for a smaller plant.[110] The smaller size may also reduce the need to access to a large grid to distribute their output.
Proposed sites
Canada
In 2018, the Canadian province of New Brunswick announced it would invest $10 million for a demonstration project at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.[111] It was later announced that SMR proponents Advanced Reactor Concepts[112] and Moltex[113] would open offices there.
On 1 December 2019, the Premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan signed a memorandum of understanding [114] "committing to collaborate on the development and deployment of innovative, versatile and scalable nuclear reactors, known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)."[115] They were joined by Alberta in August 2020.[116] With continued support from citizens and government officials have led to the execution of a selected SMR at the Canadian National Nuclear Laboratory.[27]
In 2021, Ontario Power Generation announced they plan to build a BWRX-300 SMR at their Darlington site to be completed by 2028. A licence for construction still had to be applied for.[117]
On 11 August 2022, Invest Alberta, the Government of Alberta’s crown corporation signed a MOU with Terrestrial Energy regarding IMSR in Western Canada through an interprovincial MOU it joined earlier.[118]
China
In July 2019, China National Nuclear Corporation announced it would build an ACP100 SMR on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant at Changjiang, in the Hainan province by the end of the year.[119] On 7 June 2021, the demonstration project, named the Linglong One, was approved by China's National Development and Reform Commission.[120] In July, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) started construction,[121] and in October 2021, the containment vessel bottom of the first of two units was installed. It is the world's first commercial land-based SMR prototype.[21]
In August 2023 the core module was installed. The core module includes an integrated pressure vessel, steam generator, primary pump receiver. The reactor's planned capacity is 125 MWe.[122]
Poland
Polish chemical company Synthos declared plans to deploy a Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor (300 MW) in Poland by 2030.[123] A feasibility study was completed in December 2020 and licensing started with the Polish National Atomic Energy Agency.[124]
In February 2022, NuScale Power and the large mining conglomerate KGHM Polska Miedź announced signing of contract to construct first operational reactor in Poland by 2029.[125]
United Kingdom
In 2016, it was reported that the UK Government was assessing Welsh SMR sites - including the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Sizewell, Sellafield, and Wylfa were stated to be possibilities.[126] The target cost for a 470 MWe Rolls-Royce SMR unit is £1.8 billion for the fifth unit built.[127][128] In 2020, it was reported that Rolls-Royce had plans to construct up to 16 SMRs in the UK. In 2019, the company received £18 million to begin designing the modular system.[129] An additional £210 million was awarded to Rolls-Royce by the British government in 2021, complemented by a £195 million contribution from private firms.[130] In November 2022 Rolls-Royce announced that the sites at Trawsfynydd, Wylfa, Sellafield and Oldbury would be prioritised for assessment as potential locations for multiple SMRs.[131]
The British government launched Great British Nuclear in July 2023 to administer a competition to create SMRs, and will co-fund any viable project.[132]
United States
In December 2019, the Tennessee Valley Authority was authorized to receive an Early Site Permit (ESP) by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for siting an SMR at its Clinch River site in Tennessee.[133] This ESP is valid for 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness. This ESP is applicable for any light-water reactor SMR design under development in the United States.[134]
The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) had partnered with Energy Northwest to explore siting a NuScale Power reactor in Idaho, possibly on the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.[135] The project was cancelled in 2023 due to increased costs.[69]
The Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Galena, Alaska was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation. It was a potential deployment for the Toshiba 4S reactor.[136]
Romania
On the occasion of 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the state-owned Romanian nuclear energy company Nuclearelectrica and NuScale signed an agreement to build a power plant with six small-scale nuclear reactors on the site of a former coal power plant, located in the village of Doicești, Dâmbovița county, 90 km North of Bucharest. The project is estimated to be completed by 2026–2027, which will make the power plant the first of its kind in Europe. The power plant will generate 462 MWe, securing the consumption of about 46.000 households and will help avoid the release of 4 million tons of CO2 per year.[137][138][139]
References
- ↑ Berniolles, Jean-Marie (29 November 2019). "De-mystifying small modular reactors". Sustainability Times. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
- ↑ "The Galena Project Technical Publications", p. 22, Burns & Roe
- 1 2 "Small Modular Reactors: Nuclear Energy Market Potential for Near-term Deployment" (PDF). OECD-NEA.org. 2016.
- 1 2 Furfari, Samuele (31 October 2019). "Squaring the energy circle with SMRs". Sustainability Times. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
- 1 2 Perera, Judith (18 January 2023). "IAEA ups support for SMRs". Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved 24 January 2023.
- ↑ "Licensing Small Modular Reactors: An Overview of Regulatory and Policy Issues" (PDF). Hoover Institution. 2015.
- 1 2 "World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org.
- ↑ "Small isn't always beautiful" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2019. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
- ↑ Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio; Sainati, Tristano (20 June 2020). "Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors". Energy. 206: 118137. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118137.
- 1 2 Greneche, Dominique (18 June 2010), Proliferation issues related to the deployment of Small & Medium Size reactors (SMRs) (PDF), Areva, archived from the original (presentation) on 24 March 2017
- ↑ Trakimavičius, Lukas (November 2020). "Is Small Really Beautiful? The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) In The Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence.
- ↑ "Chasing Cheap Nuclear: Economic Trade-Offs for Small Modular Reactors". NAE Website. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
- ↑ Mignacca, B.; Locatelli, G. (1 February 2020). "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 118: 109519. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109519. ISSN 1364-0321. S2CID 209778267.
- ↑ Trakimavičius, Lukas. "Is Small Really Beautiful? The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) in the Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
- 1 2 3 Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung (10 March 2021). "Small Modular Reactors - Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten?" (in German).
- 1 2 Mignacca, Benito; Hasan Alawneh, Ahmad; Locatelli, Giorgio (27 June 2019). Transportation of small modular reactor modules: What do the experts say?. 27th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering.
- ↑ Boarin, Sara; Ricotti, Marco E. (5 August 2014). "An Evaluation of SMR Economic Attractiveness". Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2014: e803698. doi:10.1155/2014/803698. ISSN 1687-6075.
- ↑ Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio (1 November 2019). "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 118: 109519. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109519.
- 1 2 Akademik Lomonosov-1, Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), International Atomic Energy Agency, 2020-09-13.
- ↑ "Russia connects floating plant to grid". World Nuclear News. 19 December 2019.
Alexey Likhachov, director general of state nuclear corporation Rosatom, said Akademik Lomonosov had thus becomes the world's first nuclear power plant based on SMR technology to generate electricity.
- 1 2 Installation of containment starts at Chinese SMR. WNN, 25 Oct 2021
- ↑ INEA, NEA, IEA. "Innovative Nuclear Reactor Development: Opportunities for International Co-operation", OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
- 1 2 Carlson, J. "Fast Neutron Reactors" Archived 24 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine, World Nuclear Association
- 1 2 3 Glaser, Alexander (5 November 2014), Small Modular Reactors - Technology and Deployment Choices (presentation), NRC
- 1 2 Wilson, P.D. "Nuclear Power Reactors" Archived 12 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine, World Nuclear Association
- ↑ brian wang (13 October 2011). "Flibe Energy Liquid Flouride [sic] Thorium Reactor Company". Nextbigfuture.com. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
- 1 2 Carelli, Mario D., Ingersoll, D. T. (22 October 2020). Handbook of small modular nuclear reactors. Woodhead. ISBN 978-0-12-823917-9. OCLC 1222802880.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ↑ "Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
- ↑ "Nuclear Process Heat for Industry" Archived 16 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine, World Nuclear Association
- ↑ Locatelli, Giorgio; Fiordaliso, Andrea; Boarin, Sara; Ricotti, Marco E. (1 May 2017). "Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors" (PDF). Progress in Nuclear Energy. 97: 153–161. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.012.
- ↑ Locatelli, Giorgio; Boarin, Sara; Pellegrino, Francesco; Ricotti, Marco E. (1 February 2015). "Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis" (PDF). Energy. 80: 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040. hdl:11311/881391.
- ↑ Locatelli, Giorgio; Boarin, Sara; Pellegrino, Francesco; Ricotti, Marco E. (2015). "Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis". Energy. 80: 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040. ISSN 0360-5442.
- ↑ Sicherheitstechnische Analyse und Risikobewertung einer Anwendung von SMR-Konzepten (Small Modular Reactors). BASE, März 2021
- ↑ Für die Zukunft zu spät. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 9. März 2021
- ↑ DOE-HDBK-1019 1993, pp. 23–29
- ↑ "Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost Concerns (2013)". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cunningham, Nick (2012). Small modular reactors : a possible path forward for nuclear power. American Security Project. OCLC 813390081.
- ↑ Wald, M. "TR10: Traveling Wave Reactor" Archived 11 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Technology Review
- ↑ 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/
- 1 2 Barber, Gregory. "Smaller reactors may still have a big nuclear waste problem". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 3 August 2022.
- ↑ Vaughan, Adam (30 May 2022). "Mini nuclear power stations may produce more waste than large ones". New Scientist. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- ↑ Stanford University (30 May 2022). "Small modular reactors produce high levels of nuclear waste". Stanford News. Retrieved 4 December 2023.
- 1 2 3 Krall, Lindsay M.; Macfarlane, Allison M.; Ewing, Rodney C. (7 June 2022). "Nuclear waste from small modular reactors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (23): e2111833119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11911833K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2111833119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9191363. PMID 35639689.
- ↑ "Stanford's questionable study on spent nuclear fuel for SMRs". Neutron Bytes. 31 May 2022. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- ↑ "Management of spent fuel, radioactive waste and decommissioning in SMRs or advanced reactor technologies. 7-10 November 2022, Ottawa, Canada. Workshop programme" (PDF). Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- ↑ Diaz-Maurin, François (17 June 2022). "Interview: Small modular reactors get a reality check about their waste". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- ↑ Krall, Lindsay M.; Macfarlane, Allison M. (31 August 2018). "Burning waste or playing with fire? Waste management considerations for non-traditional reactors". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Routledge. 74 (5): 326–334. doi:10.1080/00963402.2018.1507791. S2CID 149901270. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- ↑ Trakimavičius, Lukas (November 2020). "Is Small Really Beautiful?The Future Role of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) In The Military" (PDF). NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence.
- 1 2 Ingersoll, D.T. (2009). "Deliberately small reactors and the second nuclear era". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 51 (4–5): 589–603. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2009.01.003. ISSN 0149-1970.
- ↑ Kang, J.; Von Hippel, F. N. (2001). "U‐232 and the proliferation‐resistance of U‐233 in spent fuel". Science & Global Security. 9 (1): 1–32. Bibcode:2001S&GS....9....1K. doi:10.1080/08929880108426485. S2CID 8033110. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2014. Retrieved 2 March 2015.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ↑ Ashley, Stephen (2012). "Thorium fuel has risks". Nature. 492 (7427): 31–33. Bibcode:2012Natur.492...31A. doi:10.1038/492031a. PMID 23222590. S2CID 4414368.
- ↑ Office of Nuclear Energy. "What is a Nuclear Microreactor?". Office of Nuclear Energy. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
- ↑ Sainati, Tristano; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi (15 March 2015). "Small Modular Reactors: Licensing constraints and the way forward" (PDF). Energy. 82: 1092–1095. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.079.
- ↑ Rysavy, C., Rhyne, S., Shaw, R. "Small Modular Reactors", ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources – Special Committee on Nuclear Power
- ↑ Black, R.L. (2015), "Licensing of small modular reactors (SMRs)", Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Elsevier, pp. 279–292, doi:10.1533/9780857098535.3.279, ISBN 9780857098511, retrieved 1 May 2022
- ↑ "Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)". Energy.gov. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
- ↑ "Small isn't always beautiful" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2019. Retrieved 2 April 2019.
- ↑ Cho, Adrian (20 May 2020). "U.S. Department of Energy rushes to build advanced new nuclear reactors". Science. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
- ↑ Locatelli, Giorgio; Fiordaliso, Andrea; Boarin, Sara; Ricotti, Marco E. (2017). "Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 97: 153–161. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.012. ISSN 0149-1970.
- ↑ Carelli, Mario; Petrovic, B; Mycoff, C; Trucco, Paolo; Ricotti, M.E.; Locatelli, Giorgio (1 January 2007). "Economic comparison of different size nuclear reactors". Simposio LAS/ANS 2007 – via ResearchGate.
- ↑ Harrabin, Roger (23 March 2016). "The nuclear industry: a small revolution". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
- ↑ Mignacca, Benito; Locatelli, Giorgio; Sainati, Tristano (20 June 2020). "Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors". Energy. 206: 118137. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118137.
- ↑ Mignacca, B.; Locatelli, G. (1 February 2020). "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 118: 109519. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109519. ISSN 1364-0321.
- ↑ Islam, Md. Razibul; Gabbar, Hossam A. (6 June 2014). "Study of small modular reactors in modern microgrids". International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems. 25 (9): 1943–1951. doi:10.1002/etep.1945. ISSN 2050-7038.
- ↑ Small modular reactors - Can building nuclear power become more cost-effective? (PDF). Ernst & Young (Report). gov.uk. March 2016. p. 38. Retrieved 29 February 2020.
- ↑ Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung (10 March 2021). "Small Modular Reactors - Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten?" (in German).
- ↑ EIRP (1 July 2017). "What Will Advanced Nuclear Power Plants Cost?". Energy Innovation Reform Project. Retrieved 3 November 2020.
- 1 2 Day, Paul (21 July 2020). "Industry heads warn nuclear costs must be slashed". Reuters. Retrieved 25 January 2023.
- 1 2 Bright, Zach (9 November 2023). "NuScale cancels first-of-a-kind nuclear project as costs surge". E&E News. Politico. Retrieved 9 November 2023.
- ↑ "UAMPS downsizes NuScale SMR plans". NuclearNewswire. American Nuclear Society. 21 July 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2023.
- ↑ "Further cost refinements announced for first US SMR plant". World Nuclear News. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2023.
- ↑ Schlissel, David (11 January 2023). "Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor". Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
- 1 2 "IAEA Report: Updated status on global SMR development as of September 2014" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 October 2014.
- 1 2 "China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project". Reuters. 14 July 2021. Archived from the original on 13 July 2021. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
- ↑ "Thorium Molten Salt Reactor China".
- ↑ "Westinghouse Unveils Game-Changing AP300™ Small Modular Reactor for Mid-Sized Nuclear Technology".
- ↑ "ARC-100 passes Canadian pre-licensing milestone". World Nuclear News. 2 October 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
- ↑ "N.B. makes step forward on second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau". Atlantic. 9 December 2019. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
- ↑ "Formal licence review begins for Canadian SMR". World Nuclear News. 20 May 2021. Archived from the original on 22 May 2021. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
- ↑ "The Angstrem project: Present status and development activities" (PDF). Retrieved 22 June 2017.
- ↑ "Kepco E&C teams up with shipbuilder for floating reactors". World Nuclear News. 6 October 2020. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
- ↑ "Error" (PDF).
- ↑ "Specialists of JSC concern TITAN-2 continue to work at the site of the proryv project in Seversk" (in Russian).
- ↑ "BWRX-300".
- ↑ "Demonstration HTR-PM connected to grid". www.world-nuclear-news.org. 21 December 2021.
- ↑ "Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments" (PDF).
- ↑ "Medlov FHR v1" (PDF).
- ↑ "První milník: koncepční návrh malého modulárního reaktoru byl představen veřejnosti | Centrum výzkumu Řež". cvrez.cz. Archived from the original on 3 March 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2020.
- ↑ "Westinghouse Begins Joint Licensing Process with U.S. and Canadian Regulators for eVinci™ Microreactor".
- ↑ "Terrestrial Energy | Integral Molten Salt Reactor Technology". Terrestrial Energy. Retrieved 12 November 2016.
- ↑ "ThorCon | Thorium Molten Salt Reactor". ThorCon Power. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
- ↑ Halper, Evan (18 February 2023). "See how this company plans to transform nuclear power". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2023.
- ↑ Crownhart, Casey (8 February 2023). "We were promised smaller nuclear reactors. Where are they?". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 29 March 2023.
- ↑ "French-developed SMR design unveiled". World Nuclear News. 17 September 2019. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
- ↑ "EDF announces the establishment of the International NUWARD Advisory Board" (Press release). EDF. 2 December 2021. Retrieved 26 July 2022.
- ↑ Proctor, Darrell (25 February 2020). "Tech Guru's Plan—Fight Climate Change with Nuclear Power". Power Magazine. Retrieved 23 November 2021.
- ↑ "Rolls-Royce SMR begins UK Generic Design Assessment - Nuclear Engineering International".
- ↑ "SMR Book 2020" (PDF).
- ↑ "Home". www.leadcold.com.
- ↑ "Coastal Co-generating Water Desalinating Facility Powered by Replaceable SVBR 75/100 Nuclear Reactor" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 October 2014. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
- ↑ "SVBR AKME Antysheva" (PDF).
- ↑ "Moltex Energy | Safer Cheaper Cleaner Nuclear | Stable Salt Reactors | SSR". moltexenergy.com. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
- ↑ "Phase 1 pre-licensing vendor design review executive summary: Moltex Energy". 25 May 2021. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- ↑ "Moltex molten salt reactor being built in New Brunswick Canada". NextBigFuture. 19 July 2018. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- ↑ "Urenco ends its support for U-Battery advanced reactor". Nuclear Engineering International. 22 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
- ↑ Litvak, Anya (2 February 2014). "Westinghouse backs off small nuclear plants". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
- ↑ "Energy Department Announces New Investments in Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors..." US Department of Energy. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
- ↑ Small Modular Reactors UK, promotion brochure (PDF) (Report). Rolls-Royce. 2017. (5.5 MB)
- ↑ UK SMR – brochure with specifications (PDF) (Report). Rolls-Royce. 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 June 2019. (5 MB) Archived
- ↑ Report to Congress 2001, p. 8
- ↑ Government of New Brunswick, Canada (26 June 2018). "$10 million committed for nuclear research cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
- ↑ Government of New Brunswick, Canada (9 July 2018). "Partner announced in nuclear research cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
- ↑ Government of New Brunswick, Canada (13 July 2018). "Moltex to partner in nuclear research and innovation cluster". www2.gnb.ca.
- ↑ "Collaboration memorandum of understanding" (PDF). Government of Ontario. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
- ↑ "Premier Ford, Premier Higgs and Premier Moe Sign Agreement on the Development of Small Modular Reactors". ontario.ca. Government of Ontario. Retrieved 2 December 2019.
- ↑ "Opinion: Small nuclear reactors can play big role in clean energy transition". calgaryherald.
- ↑ OPG chooses BWRX-300 SMR for Darlington new build. WNN, 2 Dec 2021
- ↑ "Pact signed to advance IMSR development in western Canada". NuclearNewswire. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
- ↑ "CNNC launches demonstration SMR project". World Nuclear News. 22 July 2019.
- ↑ "China approves construction of demonstration SMR : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News". world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved 13 July 2021.
- ↑ Editing staff (13 July 2021). "China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project". Reuters.
- ↑ Largue, Pamela (11 August 2023). "Core module instaled at China's Linglong One modular reactor". Power Engineering International. Retrieved 13 August 2023.
- ↑ "Billionaire Pole to build nuclear reactor". www.thefirstnews.com. Retrieved 17 February 2020.
- ↑ "Feasibility study completed on SMRs for Poland - Nuclear Engineering International". www.neimagazine.com. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
- ↑ "NuScale, KGHM agree to deploy SMRs in Poland". February 2022.
- ↑ McCann, Kate (2 April 2016). "Mini nuclear power stations in UK towns move one step closer". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
- ↑ "UK confirms funding for Rolls-Royce SMR". World Nuclear News. 7 November 2019. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
- ↑ Macfarlane-Smith, Sophie (8 September 2021). "Rolls-Royce SMR - Nuclear Academics Meeting" (PDF). Rolls-Royce. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
- ↑ "Rolls-Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK". BBC News. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
- ↑ "Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors". BBC. 9 November 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
- ↑ "Study identifies potential Rolls-Royce SMR sites". World Nuclear News. 11 November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
- ↑ "Nuclear energy: How environmentally-friendly and safe is it?". BBC News. 17 July 2023. Archived from the original on 10 June 2023. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
- ↑ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (17 December 2019). "NRC to Issue Early Site Permit to Tennessee Valley Authority for Clinch River Site" (PDF). nrc.gov. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
- ↑ "TVA - Small Modular Reactors". www.tva.gov. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
- ↑ "Carbon Free". www.uamps.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2017. Retrieved 8 April 2016.
- ↑ "Nuclear Power and the Perils of Pioneering". www.uaf.edu. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
- ↑ Chirileasa, Andrei (24 May 2022). "Romania, the US agree on location of first small-scale nuclear reactor". Romania Insider. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
- ↑ "Prima centrală cu mini reactor nuclear din Europa va fi la Doicești, Dâmbovița. Cum funcționează o centrală SMR". Europa Liberă România (in Romanian). Retrieved 22 November 2022.
- ↑ Agerpres. "Ghiţă (Nuclearelectrica): Suntem încrezători în potenţialul pe care amplasamentul de la." www.agerpres.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 22 November 2022.
Further reading
- Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (January 1993). "DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory" (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. DOE-HDBK-1019, DE93012223. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 November 2012.
- Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (May 2001). "Report to Congress on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors" (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 July 2011.
External links

- "Small Nuclear Power Reactors". World Nuclear Association. 7 February 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
- DOE Office of Nuclear Energy
- American Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- World Nuclear Association
- American Nuclear Society
- International Atomic Energy Agency
- Overview and Status of SMRs Being Developed in the United States