Investigating the Economic Viability
of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Ahmed Abdulla, Inês Azevedo, and M. Granger Morgan
May 2012
Large reactors are falling out of favor
Safety of reactor
operations
Spent fuel
management
Diversion of fuel
to nefarious ends
High capital cost
On cost:
Building a large reactor is viewed as a
big, complicated, scary,
long-term commitment
Average size of U.S. reactor = 1,000MWe (NRC 2011)
Move to large reactors
driven by scale economies
Can we produce nuclear reactors like aircraft?
Carnegie Mellon University
2
Interest in small modular reactors (SMRs)
Small reactors produce less than 300MWe (IAEA)
Variety of sizes and technologies (light water and non-light water)
Possible advantages:
Expanding the market:
Factory fabrication
Modular construction
Flexibility in siting and sizing
Shorter construction schedules
Lower capital outlay
Orgs that cannot afford large plants
Difficult geographies
Constrained grids
New approaches to safety
Alternative end-uses
Charleston Regional Business Journal (2012, April 11). NuScale, NuHub to
partner on small modular reactors. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/43456-nuscale-nuhub-topartner-on-small-modular-reactors?rss=0
Carnegie Mellon University
3
We focus on integral light water SMRs
 2011/12: DOE spent $110 million on SMR RD&D
 “The department is hoping for $500 million over the next five years”*
Funding reflects the DOE’s belief “that these LWR SMRs
can be commercially deployed within the next decade.”**
 These adopt familiar PWR operational principles
 Most U.S. vendor designs (any many intl. ones) are of this variety
“the question mark to me…. is: where are they going to
come out in dollars per kWe?”
“the best data available, which is [sic] largely
conjecture, exists [sic] with vendors.”***
* Wald,
M.L. (2011, February 11). Administration to Push for Small ‘Modular’ Reactors. The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?_r=2
** DOE. (2011, February 15). Small Modular Reactors. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2012_SMR_Factsheet_final.pdf
***Dan Ingersoll, personal communication, September 27, 2011.
Carnegie Mellon University
4
Here we try to generate such estimates
Building on techniques developed at CMU for focussed elicitation of
expert opinion, we conduct technical interviews to arrive at
estimates of cost, working with experts in the nuclear industry.
Twelve nuclear experts agreed to participate in our elicitation:
All actively working on SMR projects, or closely related to SMR vendors
Experts come from several departments
Technical services, project management, and supply chain development
Carnegie Mellon University
5
We explore 3 nuclear reactor designs
Scenario 1:
1,000MWe
‘conventional’ GenIII+ reactor
Scenario 2:
45MWe
SMR Number 1
Scenario 5:
225MWe
SMR Number 2
60ft
18m
89ft
27m
220ft
66m
Left: Thompson, K. (2011, June 27). Concepts and Prototypes: Two Next-Gen Nukes. Popsci. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/201106/next-gen-nuke-designs-promise-safe-efficient-emissions-free-energy
Center: Heft, G. (2011, April). Small Modular Reactors Make Headway in Many Countries. Black & Veatch Solutions Magazine. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from
http://solutions.bv.com/small-modular-reactors-make-headway-in-many-countries/
Right: Westinghouse Nuclear (2011). Explore the SMR. Westinghouse SMR. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/smr.swf
Carnegie Mellon University
6
We explore 5 nuclear plant deployment scenarios
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
1 unit
GenIII+
1 unit
SMR No. 1
5 units
SMR No. 1
24 units
SMR No. 1
1 unit
SMR No. 2
1,000MWe
45MWe
225MWe
1,080MWe
225MWe
Carnegie Mellon University
7
One-unit scenarios: overnight cost per kWe
Overnight Cost (Thousand $/kWe)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Expert
Scenar.
A B C D E F G H I
* Incl. owner’s cost
J K L* A B C D E F G H I
J K L* A B C D E F G H I
1
2
5
1 unit GenIII+
1,000MWe
1 unit SMR No. 1
45MWe
1 unit SMR No. 2
225MWe
Carnegie Mellon University
J K L*
8
How much would an SMR project cost?
6
Overnight Cost ($ x 109)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Expert A B C D E F G H I J K L* A B C D E F G H I J K L* A B C D E F G H I J K L*
Scenar.
2
3
5
1 unit SMR No. 1
45MWe
* Incl. owner’s cost
5 units SMR No. 1
225MWe
Carnegie Mellon University
1 units SMR No. 2
225MWe
9
It will take less time to construct SMR plants
There is consensus that a conventional, 1,000MWe nth-of-a-kind
plant would take 5 years from first concrete to commissioning
% project
completion
100%
0%
construction duration (years):
3
5
The single-unit SMR nth-of-a-kind plants would take 3 years from
first concrete to commissioning
Carnegie Mellon University
10
Assessing the economic attractiveness of SMRs
“Both academic studies and vendor materials tout the potential economic
benefits of SMRs. After studying the literature, we have compiled a list of
these benefits. Here, we would like your opinion on these benefits: how
valuable do you consider each?”
Carnegie Mellon University
11
Safety and security: challenges faced by SMRs
“Here, we would like your opinion on which safety concerns are alleviated
by SMR deployment (compared to GenIII+) and which concerns are not.”
Carnegie Mellon University
12
Moving forward with data from elicitation
 We have estimates of how much deployment scenarios would cost
 Factory fabrication, modular construction, and shorter constructions
schedules hold promise in “improving the chances” of iPWRs
 iPWRs do not constitute a paradigm shift when it comes to safety and
security
Technology will cater to a larger market
than conventional nuclear
 What would an SMR cost schedule look like?
 Where in the world would these be viable now?
 How do you move to a place where SMRs can be deployed in different
parts of the world? (Institutions + proliferation)
 How do the communities hosting these plants feel about them? (does
the public’s perception of SMRs differ from that of large reactors?)
Carnegie Mellon University
13