2020 Book NuclearMicroReactors

Bahman
Zohuri
Nuclear Micro
Reactors
Nuclear Micro Reactors
Bahman Zohuri
Nuclear Micro Reactors

Bahman Zohuri
Galaxy Advanced Engineering
Albuquerque, NM, USA
ISBN 978-3-030-47224-5 ISBN 978-3-030-47225-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47225-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to my son Sash, my
grandson Dariush and my granddaughter
Donya.
Preface
A new generation of reactors will start producing power in the next few years. They
are comparatively tiny—and may be key to hitting our climate goals for the better,
free of carbon e missions and free from greenhouse effects.
For the last 20 years, the future of nuclear power has stood in a high bay labora-
tory tucked away on the Oregon State University campus in the western part of the
state. Operated by NuScale Power in the form of Small Modular Reactors (SMR), an
Oregon-based energy startup, this prototype reactor represents a new chapter in the
conflict-ridden, politically bedeviled saga of nuclear power plants. Or even old com-
panies such as Westinghouse with many years of experience in nuclear power plant
in the form of Generation III and now with introduction of transportable Nuclear
Micro Reactor eVinci, which has both space exploration into terrestrial domain and
military application for a mobile brigade for a rapid deployment process.
NuScale’s reactor will not need massive cooling towers or sprawling emergency
zones. It can be built in a factory and shipped to any location, no matter how remote
due to its modulization technical approach, and it is built around old and traditional
knowledge of Light Water Reactor technique. Extensive simulations suggest that it
can handle almost any emergency without a meltdown. One reason for that is it
barely uses any nuclear fuel—at least compared with existing reactors.
eVinci Micro Reactor cooling system is designed and its cooling system is based
on Advanced Heat Pipe technology which is a very dynamic yet as passive cooling
system with most safe way without any meltdown disasters either manmade or
natural threats.
NASA’s approach with heat pipe cooled of kilopower reactor for space explora-
tion and Mars mission in near future is another application of these small reactors
yet big energy source for such application that allows to travel beyond terres-
trial space.
This is good news for a planet in the grips of a climate crisis. Nuclear energy
gets a bad rap in some environmentalist circles, but many energy experts and
policymakers agree that splitting atoms is going to be an indispensable part of
decarbonizing the world’s electricity. In the United States, nuclear power accounts
vii
viii Preface
for about two-thirds of all clean electricity, but the existing reactors are rapidly
approaching the end of their regulatory lifetimes. Only two new reactors are under
construction in the United States, but they are billions of dollars over budget and
years behind schedule.
Enter the small modular reactor designed to allow several reactors to be c ombined
into one unit. Need a modest amount of energy? Install just a few modules. Want to
fuel a sprawling city? Tack on several more. Coming up with a suitable power plant
for a wide range of situations becomes that much easier. As they are small, these
reactors can be mass-produced and shipped to any location in a handful of pieces.
Perhaps most importantly, small modular reactors can take advantage of several
cooling and safety mechanisms unavailable to their big brothers, which all but guar-
antee they will not become the next Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Nuclear reactors are getting smaller and this is opening up some big opportuni-
ties for the industry. A handful of micro reactor designs are under development in
the United States, and they could be ready to roll out within the next decade.
These plug-and-play reactors will be small enough to transport by truck and
could help solve energy challenges in a number of areas, ranging from remote
commercial or residential locations to military bases.
The devastating impacts of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels are
forcing countries around the world to look for zero-emissions alternatives for gen-
erating electricity.
One such alternative is nuclear energy, and the International Energy Agency—a
group focused on energy security, development, and environmental sustainability
for 30-member countries—says the transition to a cleaner energy system will be
drastically harder without it.
Canada’s government appears to be on board, saying nuclear innovation plays a
“critical role” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as Canada moves toward a low-
carbon future.
While Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors, a Canadian design, have
powered some Canadian communities for decades, the government is now eyeing
technology of a different scale. The federal government describes small modular
reactors (SMR), as the “next wave of innovation” in nuclear energy technology and
an “important technology opportunity for Canada.”
In this book, we cover a summary and overall aspect of Generation IV (GEN-IV),
or they are also known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as well. In this book, we
also cover Nuclear Micro Reactor and its need and implementation within
Department of Defense (DOD) military organizations.
Here is what you need to know about them.
What is a small modular reactor?
Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada can typically generate about 800 MW
of electricity, or about enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming
that 1 MW can power about 750 homes).
Preface ix
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for

nuclear cooperation, considers a nuclear reactor to be “small” if it generates
under 300 MW.
Albuquerque, NM Bahman Zohuri

2016
Acknowledgment
I am indebted to the many people who aided me, encouraged me, and supported me
beyond my expectations. Some are not around to see the results of their encourage-
ment in the production of this book, yet I hope they know of my deepest apprecia-
tions. I especially want to thank all my friends, to whom I am deeply indebted, have
continuously given their support without hesitation. They have always kept me
going in the right direction, specially a true friend Dr. Patrick J. McDaniel.
Above all, I offer very special thanks to my late mother and father, and to my
children, in particular, my son Sasha, who always encouraged me while we had in
this world for a short time. They have provided constant interest and encourage-
ment, without which this book would not have been written. Their patience with my
many absences from home and long hours in front of the computer to prepare the
manuscript are especially appreciated.
xi
Contents
1 Nuclear Micro Reactors: The Next Wave of Innovation�� 1

1.1 Introduction�� 1
1.2 Canada Deployment of Next Generation of Nuclear Technology�� 4
1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor? �� 4
1.4 Nuclear Reactors Driving Electricity Generation �� 9
1.5 What Are the Advantages of SMRs Over Traditional
Nuclear Power Plants?�� 17
1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications�� 18
1.7 Integral Modular Small Modular Reactor�� 22
1.8 Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources�� 24
1.9 The Limit of Renewable Energy and Small Modular Reactors�� 27
1.10 Small Modular Reactor-Driven Renewable
and Sustainable Energy�� 32
1.11 Small Modular Reactor-Driven Hydrogen Energy
for Renewable Energy Source�� 34
References�� 38
2 Nuclear Industry Trend Toward Small and Micro Nuclear
Power Plants �� 41
2.2 Modular Construction Using Small Reactor Units �� 44
2.3 A Novel Heat Pipe Reactor�� 53
2.4 Heat Pipe Brief Summary �� 57
2.4.1 Heat Pipe Materials and Working Fluids�� 59
2.4.2 Different Types of Heat Pipes �� 59
2.4.3 Nuclear Power Conversion �� 60
2.4.4 Benefits of These Devices�� 60
2.4.5 Limitations�� 61
2.4.6 Conclusion�� 61
2.5 Miniaturization of New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants�� 61
xiii
xiv Contents
2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application �� 67

2.6.1 Department of Defense Requirements�� 75
2.7 Nuclear Micro Reactor Influencing Future Space Explorations �� 77
2.7.1 Power From Plutonium �� 79
2.7.2 Radioisotope Power Systems Type in Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator �� 81
2.7.3 Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHU)�� 82
2.8 Additional Nuclear Technologies for Space Exploration �� 82
2.9 Reaching For Interstellar Space�� 85
2.10 Mission to Mars�� 86
2.11 NASA Kilopower Reactor-Driven Future Space Exploration�� 89
2.11.1 NASA Kilopower and What Is Next? �� 91
2.12 Canada Driving Modular Nuclear Micro Reactor�� 93
References�� 97
3 Nuclear Micro Reactor Research, Development, and Deployment�� 99
3.2 Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns �� 104
3.2.1 Are Small Modular and Micro Reactors Safer?�� 106
3.2.2 Shrinking Evacuation Zones �� 107
3.3 Economies of Scale and Catch�� 107
3.3.1 Building a Domestic Market�� 108
3.4 Barrier to Nuclear �� 109
3.5 Unrivaled Small Modular Reactors Credentials �� 110
3.6 High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) �� 110
3.6.1 High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium
(HALEU) Fuel Fabrication �� 111
3.6.2 US Enrichment Technology Demonstration �� 112
3.7 Nuclear Power Pros and Cons�� 112
3.7.1 Nuclear Challenges �� 113
3.8 Conclusions�� 116
References�� 117
Index�� 119
About the Author
Bahman Zohuri currently works for Galaxy Advanced Engineering, Inc., a

consulting firm that he started in 1991 when he left both the semiconductor and
defense industries after many years working as a chief scientist. After graduating
from the University of Illinois in the field of physics, applied mathematics, then he
went to the University of New Mexico, where he studied nuclear engineering and
mechanical engineering. He joined Westinghouse Electric Corporation, where he
performed thermal hydraulic analysis and studied natural circulation in an inherent
shutdown heat removal system (ISHRS) in the core of a liquid metal fast breeder
reactor (LMFBR) as a secondary fully inherent shutdown system for secondary
loop heat exchange. All these designs were used in nuclear safety and reliability
engineering for a self-actuated shutdown system. He designed a mercury heat pipe
and electromagnetic pumps for large pool concepts of an LMFBR for heat rejection
purposes for this reactor around 1978, when he received a patent for it. He was sub-
sequently transferred to the defense division of Westinghouse, where he oversaw
dynamic analysis and methods of launching and controlling MX missiles from can-
isters. The results were applied to MX launch seal performance and muzzle blast
phenomena analysis (i.e., missile vibration and hydrodynamic shock formation).
Dr. Zohuri was also involved in analytical calculations and computations in the
study of nonlinear ion waves in rarefying plasma. The results were applied to the
propagation of the so-called soliton waves and the resulting charge collector traces
in the rarefaction characterization of the corona of laser-irradiated target pellets. As
part of his graduate research work at Argonne National Laboratory, he performed
computations and programming of multi-exchange integrals in surface physics and
solid-state physics. He earned various patents in areas such as diffusion processes
and diffusion furnace design while working as a senior process engineer at various
semiconductor companies, such as Intel Corp., Varian Medical Systems, and
National Semiconductor Corporation. He later joined Lockheed Martin Missile and
Aerospace Corporation as Senior Chief Scientist and oversaw research and develop-
ment (R&D) and the study of the vulnerability, survivability, and both radiation and
laser hardening of different components of the Strategic Defense Initiative, known
as Star Wars.
xv
xvi About the Author
This included payloads (i.e., IR sensor) for the Defense Support Program, the
Boost Surveillance and Tracking System, and Space Surveillance and Tracking
Satellite against laser and nuclear threats. While at Lockheed Martin, he also
performed analyses of laser beam characteristics and nuclear radiation interac-
tions with materials, transient radiation effects in electronics, electromagnetic
pulses, system-generated electromagnetic pulses, single-event upset, blast,
thermo-mechanical, hardness assurance, maintenance, and device technology.
He spent several years as a consultant at Galaxy Advanced Engineering serving
Sandia National Laboratories, where he supported the development of operational
hazard assessments for the Air Force Safety Center in collaboration with other
researchers and third parties. Ultimately, the results were included in Air Force
Instructions issued specifically for directed energy weapons operational safety. He
completed the first version of a comprehensive library of detailed laser tools for
air-borne lasers, advanced tactical lasers, tactical high-energy lasers, and mobile/
tactical high-energy lasers, for example.
He also oversaw SDI computer programs, in connection with Battle Management
C3I and artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. He is the author of several
publications and holds several patents.
Chapter 1
Nuclear Micro Reactors: The Next Wave
of Innovation
1.1 Introduction
Growth of population globally has direct impact on demand for energy. Almost 18%
growth in population and their required daily life on energy and electricity demand
presents a different dimension for production of electricity not only from renewable
perspective, but also puts nuclear energy resource in different category. New gen-
eration of nuclear reactors in the form of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) or
GEN-IV. With new safety factors built into these reactors, with better thermal effi-
ciency output with innovative approach to Combined Cycle (CC) makes them more
cost-effective from Return On Investment (ROI) point of view [1–3].
Furthermore, the presence of new renewable technology and suggested solutions
by expert in the field for source of energy and energy storage does not eliminate a
demand and need for both present and near-term Nuclear Fission Reactors in the
form of GEN-III (i.e., present) to GEN-IV (i.e., next generation of SMRs) to Nuclear
Fusion Reactors in far term.
The rule of thumb for generating electricity is falling into the following category.
The requirement for production of electricity is that the electricity generation rate at
all times equals the demand for electricity. Economically achieving this goal is easy
with fossil fuels because the primary cost of producing electricity is the cost of the
fuel, not the cost of the power plant. It is economically viable to operate a fossil
plant at part load. As a consequence, in the USA and much of the world the pre-
ferred fossil-fuel generating technology is the Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
(GTCC)—a low cost machine with rapid response to variable electricity demand
with heat-to-electricity efficiencies above 60% [1, 2].
The major growth in the electricity production industry in the last 30 years has
centered on the expansion of natural gas power plants based on gas turbine cycles.
The most popular extension of the simple Brayton gas turbine has been the com-
bined cycle power plant with the air-Brayton cycle serving as the topping cycle and
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 1
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
B. Zohuri, Nuclear Micro Reactors, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47225-2_1
2 1 Nuclear Micro Reactors: The Next Wave of Innovation
the Steam-Rankine cycle serving as the bottoming cycle for new generation of
nuclear power plants that are known as GEN-IV. The air-Brayton cycle is an open
air cycle and the Steam-Rankine cycle is a closed cycle. The air-Brayton cycle for a
natural gas-driven power plant must be an open cycle, where the air is drawn in from
the environment and exhausted with the products of combustion to the environment.
This technique is suggested as an innovative approach to GEN-IV nuclear power
plants in the form and type of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The hot exhaust
from the air-Brayton cycle passes through a Heat Recovery Steam Generator
(HSRG) prior to exhausting to the environment in a combined cycle. The HRSG
serves the same purpose as a boiler for the conventional Steam-Rankine cycle [4].
Given the climate change is real fact and low-carbon environment is a mandatory
reality, a quest for a new source energy that provides electricity at zero carbon
generation becomes a necessity. Thus, our choice of nuclear energy in the form of
either fission in near term or fusion in long term is there. In Chap. 2 of this book, we
discuss topic of “Why We Need Nuclear Power Plants” based new innovative
t echniques to make them more efficient as well as safety point of view and
cost-effectiveness. Safety aspect of operational version of generation four (GEN-IV)
of these reactors in the form of SMRs are number one priority of owners of these
reactors given the aftermath of events such as Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
(2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979), and
the SL-1 accident (1961) are few we can name [5].
The devastating impacts of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels are
forcing countries around the world to look for zero-emissions alternatives for gen-
erating electricity.
One such alternative is nuclear energy as clean source of energy that is free of
carbon dioxide or monoxide generation, and the International Energy Agency
(IEA)—a group focused on energy security, development, and environmental
sustainability for 30-member countries—says the transition to a cleaner energy sys-
tem will be drastically harder without it [6].
As part of our need for clean source of energy in the form of nuclear power reac-
tors, NuScale is one of the Small Modular Reactor companies whose designs are
going through pre-licensing approval with Canada’s nuclear regulator. Many are
designed to be small enough to transport by truck or by shipping container. (NuScale
Power) and their reactors are so transportable as illustrated in Fig. 1.1, while it is
modular as well using technology such as Light Water Reactor (LWR) for licensing
purpose through US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Canada’s government appears to be on board, saying nuclear innovation plays a
“critical role” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as Canada moves toward a low-
carbon future.
While husky CANada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors (i.e., Fig. 1.2)
have powered some Canadian communities for decades, governments are now eye-
ing technology of a different scale. The federal government describes small modular
reactors (SMR) (i.e., see next section), as the “next wave of innovation” in nuclear
energy technology and an “important technology opportunity for Canada.”
1.1 Introduction 3
Fig. 1.1 A conceptual illustration of Small Modular Reactor on a truck
Fig. 1.2 CANDU reactor schematic. (Source: Canadian Nuclear FAQ)
There are currently 18 CANDU reactors in operation in Canada: 8 at Bruce

Power, 6 in Pickering, 3 in Darlington, and 1 in Point Lepreau.
CANDU reactors are unique in that they use natural, unenriched uranium as a
fuel; with some modification, they can also use enriched uranium, mixed fuels, and
even thorium. Thus, CANDU reactors are ideally suited for using material from
decommissioned nuclear weapons as fuel, helping to reduce global arsenals.
CANDU reactors are exceptionally safe. The safety systems are independent
from the rest of the plant, and each key safety component has three backups. Not
only does this redundancy increase the overall safety of the system, but it also makes
it possible to test the safety system while the reactor is operating under full power.
1.2 C
anada Deployment of Next Generation of Nuclear
Technology
In a news released in November 7, 2018, Canada, Poised to Lead the Deployment

of Next-Generation Nuclear Technology. The Government of Canada recognizes
that innovation in the nuclear sector plays a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and delivering good, middle-class jobs as Canada moves toward a low-
carbon future.
The Honorable Amarjeet Sohi, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, in 2018
welcomed the release of the Canadian Small Modular Reactor Roadmap, which he
described as an “important technology opportunity for Canada, both at home and on
the world stage.”
He went on to say that small modular reactors represent a promising area of
energy innovation in Canada. The roadmap includes recommendations that will
help inform ongoing collaboration among federal, provincial, and territorial govern-
ments—as well as other stakeholders and Indigenous communities—to ensure
Canada becomes a global leader in the development of this new technology.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represent the next wave of innovation in nuclear
energy technology. SMRs are designed to be built at a smaller scale than traditional
nuclear reactors, with lower upfront capital costs and enhanced safety features.
They have potential to provide non-emitting energy in a wide range of applications,
such as grid-scale electricity generation and heavy industry, including in remote
communities.
The Department of Natural Resources convened interested provinces, territories,
power utilities, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders to support the
development of the roadmap. The roadmap is a result of a 10-month engagement
process with the industry and potential end-users, including Indigenous and north-
ern communities and heavy industry. It includes over 50 recommendations in areas
such as waste management, regulatory readiness, and international engagement. It
also highlights the need for ongoing engagement with civil society, northern and
Indigenous communities, and environmental organizations. The roadmap arose out
of last year’s Generation Energy consultation process—the largest national conver-
sation about energy in Canada’s history.
The Government of Canada welcomes the Canadian Small Modular Reactor
Roadmap and is presently reviewing its recommendations.
1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor?
Based on augmentation of Nuclear Power Plant in Canada that are operating on

their electric grid, a traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada can typically gener-
ate about 800 MW of electricity, or about enough to power about 600,000 homes at
once (assuming that 1 MW can power about 750 homes). Similarly, in the USA the
1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor? 5
largest operational reactor on line is Palo Verde near Tonopah, Arizona, that is
producing 1311 MW power generation per unit with total of three units as illus-
trated in Fig. 1.3.
The Palo Verde Generating Station is the largest power plant in the USA by net
power generation. Its average electric power production is about 3.3 gigawatts
(GW), and this power serves about 4 million people. The Arizona Public Service
Company (APS) operates and owns 29.1% of the plant. Its other major owners
include the Salt River Project (SRP) (17.5%), the El Paso Electric Company
(15.8%), Southern California Edison (SCE) (15.8%), PNM Resources (10.2%), the
Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) (5.9%), and the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (5.7%).
Currently, all large commercial power reactors in the USA and most in the rest
of the world are based on “light water” designs—that is, they use uranium fuel and
ordinary water for cooling. By contrast, an emerging class of small reactors come in
widely varying designs and use a variety of fuels and cooling systems, some can
even utilize existing legacy radioactive waste as a fuel source. They range from
downsized light water reactors to more exotic liquid metal-cooled fast reactors, with
the smallest designs beginning at a 10 MW capacity.
Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organiza-
tion for nuclear cooperation, considers a nuclear reactor to be “small” if it generates
under 300 MW.
Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 to 300 MW have been submitted
to Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC),
for review as part of a pre-licensing process.
Fig. 1.3 Aerial photo of Palo Verde Generation Station

Thus, such reactors are considered “modular” because they are designed to work
either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with
traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant
could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules. See Fig. 1.4.
Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be
transported easily—for example, via a standard shipping container. See Fig. 1.5.
Bear in mind that small modular reactors are nuclear energy’s future and scaled-
down nuclear power plants offer price gains over conventional sites such as Palo
Verde power generation station in Arizona.
As delays mount at large new nuclear power projects around the world, more
attention is turning to smaller alternatives, which industry experts hope may help
provide the next generation of electricity.
The so-called small modular reactors—miniature nuclear power plants with a
capacity of less than 300 MW—could provide an alternative to mega-plants like the
two 1.6 GW reactors planned at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The UK project is one of a number of delayed or abandoned nuclear power
schemes, which have left policymakers around the world looking for cheaper, less
risky options to meet electricity demand.
SMRs are designed as shrunken versions of larger plants; they can be made in
factories and moved by train, truck, or barge to the site. Developers say that if
enough are built in the same factory, costs per unit of energy output can be driven
down well below those of larger plants.
Small reactors are already used on nuclear submarines and in some developing coun-
tries such as India and Pakistan. But only recently have the industry and politicians
begun to take seriously the idea that they could be made economically on a large scale.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) from Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and
Return On Investment (ROI) promise all the benefits of nuclear—low cost and green
power—but without the significant cost and schedule overrun issues associated with
Fig. 1.4 Modular reactor concept. (Source: Generation IV International Forum)

1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor? 7
Fig. 1.5 Small Modular Reactors are nuclear energy’s future in transit
large-scale size power plant such as traditional one of GEN III, where the beset
conventional large nuclear projects have to bear.
Since the invention of nuclear power, bigger has generally been seen to be better.
Once a company had gone through the time and expense of securing a site along
with planning approval and grid connections, most wanted to build as much capac-
ity on that site as possible [7].
However, many of those stations have been plagued with problems, which some
blame on their size. Plans by EDF, the French energy company, to build new reac-
tors in France and Finland, for example, have gone billions of euros over budget—
something many experts blame on the difficulty of making such large structures
safe. Furthermore, building the large-scale Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) take more
time to build them, simply because there are more huge structures to deal with and
to protect against natural and man-made disaster and so many other safety systems
that provide safety protection against any terrorist acts toward these plants.
Large projects such as these have also had trouble getting financed—one of the
principal causes of delay at Hinkley Point has been the difficulty EDF is having in
raising the money needed for the £18 billion project.
For now, small-scale nuclear industry proponents are focused on proving the
technology can work at costs low enough to make it competitive. The countries that
are furthest along are, unsurprisingly, those with the most developed nuclear energy
industries.
Russia is in the process of converting two small reactors which used to power
icebreakers. They will eventually be placed on barges which can then be moved to
where they are needed [7].
All these falls in our thinking of holding the costs down—as long as enough
SMRs are manufactured and deployed for commissioning at give sites. Figures 1.6
and 1.7 shows such artistic renderings of the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) site in
comparison to a traditional one.
The USA and the UK are both trying to catch up. The UK recently took a leaf out
of the US book when it announced it would run a competition to find the best Small
Modular Reactor (SMR) design, with £250 million on offer to help with research
and development. From combined cycle and open air-Brayton cycle thermodynam-
ics point of view advanced version of such SMRs with high temperature will pro-
vide better thermal efficiency output does bring the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
and Return On Investment (ROI) to a very reasonable cost-effectiveness [1–4].
“The US and the UK are in a race at the moment, and that is driving both for-
ward,” says Jared DeMeritt, program director of MPower, an SMR developer. “We
think 2025 is a realistic start date for the first small modular reactor in the west,
which will be in one of these two countries.” This is according to the UK Financial
Times [7].
MPower’s design shows some of the ways that smaller plants can avoid the pit-
falls of larger ones. In its case, MPower plans to bury all safety-critical equipment—
including the reactor and the fuel vessels—underground, thereby minimizing the
need for expensive physical defenses [7].
Fig. 1.6 Traditional nuclear plant real estate versus SMR footprint
1.4 Nuclear Reactors Driving Electricity Generation 9
Fig. 1.7 Artistic layout of SMR installation
Despite the optimism among some in the industry, there remain significant
h urdles to widespread use of SMRs. Firstly, even those building them privately
admit the first ones will cost roughly the same per unit of electricity produced by
a large reactor until costs can be driven down. One executive says: “Over time,
we think we can get the costs down—as long as enough of them are commis-
sioned” [7].
But advocates of SMRs say that even if they prove more expensive for the elec-
tricity produced, costs are less likely to escalate and more likely to be fully
funded [7].
David Hess of the World Nuclear Association says: “Financing is a huge policy
risk, and SMRs reduce that. And if the project goes wrong, at least less money has
been wasted” [7].
1.4 Nuclear Reactors Driving Electricity Generation
In this section, we answer the question about “How do nuclear reactors generate
electricity?”. The basic cycle is as described below.
Nuclear reactors of all sizes are powered by nuclear fission—the process of split-
ting atoms of nuclear fuel, typically uranium, into smaller atoms. That generates
heat. This definition applies to present situation where fission reaction is driving the
Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) at present time. However, in near future fusion reaction
also will be source of energy to drive the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) of different
type based on Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) [8] or the other possibility will
be Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) [9] as well. Both type of these rectors are
thermonuclear-driven fusion kinds rather than fission-driven one.
In thermal power plants, the heat turns water into steam, and the steam pushes
turbines that generate electricity. That part of the process is the same whether the
heat is generated by nuclear power, burning fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas,
or even concentrated solar energy. See Fig. 1.8 for this concept.
What every country that is involved with technology of Small Modular Reactors
(SMRs) are in agreement with each other in respect to the advantages of SMRs
Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) over the traditional one.
For example, the Canada’s government says SMRs are designated to have lower
upfront capital costs and enhanced safety features compared to traditional reactors.
Because of their small size, most could be completely built in a factory and
installed module by module, making construction quicker, more efficient and theo-
retically cheaper, according to the World Nuclear Association [10], which repre-
sents the nuclear industry. Upfront costs, especially, would be lower, since modules
could be added as needed, when the demand for electricity rises, instead of being
paid for all at once.
The US support for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) through Department of
Energy (DOE) falls back to January of 2012, when DOE called for applications
from industry to support the development of one or two US Light Water Reactor
(LWR) designs, allocating $452 million over 5 years period through the SMR
Licensing Technical Support (LTS) program. Thus, four applications were sug-
gested and made, from Westinghouse (W), Babcock & Wilcox (BW), Holtech, and
NuScale Power companies and the units of each module were ranging from 225
MWe down to 45 MWe.
In March 2012, the DOE signed agreements with three companies interested in
constructing demonstration small reactors at its Savannah River site in South
Carolina. The three companies and reactors are: Hyperion (now GEN IV Energy)
with a 25 MWe fast reactor, Holtec with a 160 MWe PWR, and NuScale with its
45 MWe PWR (since increased to 60 MWe). The agreements concerned the provi-
sion of land but not finance. The DOE was in discussion with four further small
Fig. 1.8 Heat generated

source. (Source:
Government of Canada)
reactor developers regarding similar arrangements, aiming to have in 10–15 years a

suite of small reactors providing power for the DOE complex. (Over 1953–1991,
Savannah River was where a number of production reactors for weapons plutonium
and tritium were built and run.)
SMR Start has called for the DOE’s LTS program for SMRs to be extended to
2025 with an increase in funding. It pointed out: “Private companies and DOE have
invested over $1 billion in the development of SMRs. However, more investment,
through public–private partnerships is needed in order to assure that SMRs are a
viable option in the mid-2020s. In addition to accomplishing the public benefit from
SMR deployment, the federal government would receive a return on investment
through taxes associated with investment, job creation and economic output over
the lifetime of the SMR facilities that would otherwise not exist without the US
government’s investment.”
Canadian support for SMRs technology goes back to June of 2016, when it was
announced through a report for the Ontario Ministry of Energy that was focused on
nine designs under 25 MWe per module for off-grid remote sites. All had a medium
level of technology readiness and were expected to be competitive against diesel.
Two designs were integral Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) of 6.4 and 9 MWe,
three were High Temperature Reactors (HTRs) of 5, 8, and 16 MWe, two were
Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs) (i.e., Fig. 1.9) of 1.5/2.8 and 10 MWe, one was
Fig. 1.9 Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). (Source: www.wikipedia.com)

a Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) (i.e., see Fig. 1.10) of 3–10 MWe, and one was
an MSR of 32.5 MWe. Four were under 5 MWe (an SFR, LFR, and two HTRs).
Note that a Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) is a fast neutron reactor cooled by
liquid sodium.
The acronym SFR particularly refers to two Generation IV reactor proposals,
one based on existing Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFR) technology using
Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel [11], the other based on the metal-fueled integral fast
reactor.
Several sodium-cooled fast reactors have been built, some still in operation, and
others are in planning or under construction.
Ontario distinguishes “grid scale” SMRs above 25 MWe from these very small-
scale reactors.
Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs) are fast spectrum reactors cooled by molten
lead (or lead-based alloys) operating at high temperatures and at near atmospheric
pressure, conditions enabled because of the very high boiling point of the coolant
(up to 1743 °C) and its low vapor pressure. Due to the fundamental thermodynamic
and neutronic characteristics of lead as a coolant, LFRs offer great potential for new
reactor designs that achieve a high degree of inherent safety, simplified operation,
and excellent economic performance while providing the fuel material management
advantages characteristic of fast reactors. LFR designs span the range of reactor
sizes and potential deployment scenarios.
Pushing the physical sizes of the new generation (i.e., GEN IV) from small to
smaller, Westinghouse Nuclear Micro Reactor heat Pipe design suggests a new
innovative technical approach as illustrated in Fig. 1.11.
Pumps with short shaft

integrated in the STSG
– No bearings in lead
Fuel assemblies with extended
In-vessel STSG stem and innovative support
– No intermediate system
loops – No above core structure
– No in-vessel fuel handling
machine
– No strongback
Bottom-fed STSG
with radial flow path
– No “Deversoir” Innovative passive DHR system
– No need of electric energy
Core fed by the for actuation and operation
hydraulic head
between cold and
hot collector Amphora-shaped inner vessel
– No “LIPOSO” – No core shielding elements
Fig. 1.10 Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)

Emergency Decay heat

driver exchanger
Control Passive decay
drum driver heat removal
Emergency
Primary heat
shutdown
exchanger Reactor
Heat pipes controls
Monolith
Fig. 1.11 Westinghouse eVinci heat pipe nuclear micro reactor layout. (Source: www.wikipedia.
com)
Distinct from other small reactor designs, the eVinci is a heat pipe reactor, using
a fluid in numerous sealed horizontal steel heat pipes to conduct heat from the hot
fuel (where the fluid vaporizes) to the external condenser (where the fluid releases
latent heat of vaporization) with heat exchanger. No pumps are needed to effect
continuous isothermal vapor/liquid internal flow at low pressure. The principle is
well established on a small scale, but here a liquid metal is used as the fluid and
reactor sizes up to several megawatts are envisaged. Experimental work on heat
pipe reactors for space has been with much smaller units (about 100 kWe), using
sodium as the fluid. They have been developed since 1994 as a robust and low tech-
nical risk system for space exploration with an emphasis on high reliability
and safety.
The eVinci reactors would be fully factory built and fueled. As well as power
generation, process heat to 600 °C would be available. Units would have 5–10-year
operational lifetime, with walkaway safety due to inherent feedback diminishing the
nuclear reaction with excess heat, also effecting load following.
Bear in your mind that heat pipe is passive heat transfer devise that holds no
moving part in it and does not require to take on task of heat transfer [12, 13].
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has released a draft white paper
on its strategy for reviewing licensing applications for advanced non-light water
reactor technologies. The NRC said it expects to finalize the draft paper by
November, with submission of the first non-Light Water Reactor (non-LWR) appli-
cation expected by December 2019. By mid-2019 the NRC had been formally noti-
fied by six reactor designers of their intention to seek design approval. These
included three MSRs, one High Temperature Reactor (HTR), one Fast Neutron
Reactor (FNR), and the Westinghouse eVinci heat pipe reactor [10].
Note that a Fast-Neutron Reactor (FNR) or simply a fast reactor is a category of

nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons (car-
rying energies above 0.5 MeV or greater, on average), as opposed to thermal neu-
trons used in thermal-neutron reactors.
Among six types of Generation IV (GEN-IV) reactors under conceptual study
for types of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is the Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) that
shows a promising future for build and going to production. See Fig. 1.12.
A Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is a class of nuclear fission reactor in which the
primary nuclear reactor coolant and/or the fuel is a molten salt mixture. MSRs offer
multiple advantages over conventional nuclear power plants, although for historical
reasons, they have not been deployed, yet is under research study.
The concept was first established in the 1950s. The early Aircraft Reactor
Experiment was primarily motivated by the small size that the technique offered,
while the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was a prototype for a thorium fuel cycle
breeder nuclear power plant. The increased research into Generation IV reactor
designs renewed interest in the technology.
With what we have seen so far the nuclear power plant manufacturing companies
and industry are making a big bet on small power plant with NuScale (i.e., Fig. 1.13)
in the lead following with Westinghouse (i.e., Fig. 1.11) and Holmic small reactor
(i.e., Fig. 1.14) behind them, while General Electric Hitachi Collaborating with
ARC in same space (i.e., Fig. 1.15).
Fig. 1.12 Example of a Molten Salt Reactor scheme. (Source: www.wikipedia.com)

Fig. 1.13 NuScale small

modular reactor
configuration. (Source:
www.wikipedia.com)
CONTROL ROD
DRIVE MECHANISM
PRESSURIZER
MAIN STEAM
RISER
(PRIMARY FLOW)
STEAM GENERATOR
(SECONDARY FLOW)
CONTAINMENT VESSEL
FEEDWATER
DOWNCOMER
(PRIMARY FLOW)
REACTOR
PRESSURE VESSEL
CORE
(PRIMARY FLOW)
Until now, generating nuclear power through Generation III (GEN-III) has
required massive facilities surrounded by acres of buildings, electrical infrastruc-
ture, roads, parking lots, and more. The nuclear industry is trying to change that
picture—by going small, thus smaller footprint from real estate perspective.
Efforts to build the nation’s first “advanced small modular reactor,” or SMR, in
Idaho, are on track for it to become operational by the mid-2020s. The project took
a crucial step forward when the company behind it, NuScale, secured an important
security certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
But worldwide, the first ones could be generating power by 2020 in China,
Argentina, and Russia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The debate continues over whether this technology is worth pursuing, but the
nuclear industry is not waiting for a verdict. Nor, as an energy scholar presumably.
This new generation of smaller and more technologically advanced reactors offer
many advantages, including an assembly-line approach to production, vastly reduced
Fig. 1.14 Possible Holtic

small reactor configuration.
(Source: www.wikipedia.
com)
meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among
others. See next section of this chapter for trade-off and comparison with tradition
nuclear power plant in operation now.
Now the question is how small is small and will be considered as part Small
Modular Reactor (SMR) technique or we need to consider something at the size of
Nuclear Micro Reactor (NMR).
Most small modular reactors now in the works range between 50 MW—roughly
enough power for 60,000 modern US homes—and 200 MW. And there are designs
for even smaller such as modular “mini” or modular “micro-reactors” that generate
as few as 3–4 MW.
1.5 What Are the Advantages of SMRs Over Traditional Nuclear Power Plants? 17
Fig. 1.15 GE Hitachi and ARC small reactor layout. (Source: www.wikipedia.com)
In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about

1000–1600 MW of electricity, although many built before 1990, including over half
the 99 reactors now operating in the USA, are smaller than this.
1.5 W
hat Are the Advantages of SMRs Over Traditional
Nuclear Power Plants?
All the scientists and engineers involved in design of Small Modular Reactors
(SMRs) all in agreement that such rectors have lower upfront capital consist and
enhanced safety features compared to traditional reactors.
Because of their small size, most could be completely built in a factory and
installed module by module, making construction quicker, more efficient and theo-
retically cheaper, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which repre-
sents the nuclear industry. Upfront costs, especially, would be lower, since modules
could be added as needed instead of being paid for all at once [10].
An additional reason for interest in SMRs is that they can more readily slot into
brownfield sites in place of decommissioned coal-fired plants, the units of which are
seldom very large—more than 90% are under 500 MWe, and some are under 50
MWe. In the United States, coal-fired units retired over 2010–12 averaged 97 MWe,
and those expected to retire over 2015–25 average 145 MWe.
As it was stated in above by definition, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are
defined as nuclear reactors generally 300 MWe equivalent or less, designed with
modular technology using module factory fabrication, pursuing economies of series
production, and short construction times. This definition, from the World Nuclear
Association, is closely based on those from the IAEA and the US Nuclear Energy
Institute. Some of the already-operating small reactors mentioned or tabulated
below do not fit this definition, but most of those described do fit it.
Another feature that is predicted to lower the cost is that it is easier to cool SMRs
because of their larger surface area-to-volume ratio. That means their safety systems
do not need to be as complex. Most can rely on “passive” built-in safety features in
the event of a malfunction, rather than special systems that need to be activated. In
particular those Advanced High Temperature Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are
an excellent candidate for augmenting open air-Brayton cycle for a better thermal
efficiency output, thus reduces cost of ownership by producing more efficient
energy for generating electricity [1].
Moreover, can we say that are there any other differences between SMRs and the
traditional (GEN-III) Nuclear Power Plants?
The answer is that some SMR designs are effectively scaled-down versions of
traditional nuclear reactors, such as NuScale SMR design is around the technology
of Light Water Reactors (LWR) that makes to obtain operational licensing by far out
much easier from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) perspective, but some
also incorporate next-generation nuclear technologies and designs.
For example:
• Molten salt reactors that use molten salt—salt that has melted into a liquid at
high temperatures—instead of water as a coolant and dissolve the fuel in the salt.
That allows them to operate at regular atmospheric pressure instead of the high
pressure that traditional reactors operate at.
• Liquid metal fast reactors use liquid sodium or lead as a coolant. Both molten salt
and liquid metal fast reactors can reuse and consume fuel from other reactors.
• High temperature gas reactors use an inert gas such as helium as a coolant and
can operate at a higher temperature, making them more efficient.
There are other designs for SMRs nuclear power plant as well and overall total
of six of these reactors are under consideration as Generation IV (GEN-IV).
1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications
Innovative small reactors can help meet clean energy goals and make electricity
more accessible for all.
In addition to reducing carbon emissions, SMRs will use a tiny fraction of land
due to its small footprint compared to wind and solar. Small reactors can power
1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications 19
retired fossil sites, match electricity output with demand, integrate with renewables,
and be used for heat, desalination, and other applications.
Due to the relatively small and mobile nature of the SMRs, they are of great
interest to governments and private groups alike. Large nuclear reactors are fraught
with complications such as finding space for installment, financing, and timely con-
struction. SMRs are a viable solution, and governments such as Russia and France
have already begun construction and utilization of this technology [1, 2, 14].
Furthermore, SMRs are of great interest due to their potential to curb CO2
emissions as an alternative source of power [15]. This report seeks to evaluate the
potential benefits and applications for SMRs in the upcoming decade as well as
consider the potential downsides of utilizing SMRs moving forward. See Fig. 1.16.
SMRs are already being utilized by multiple parties, including “on nuclear subma-
rines and in some developing countries such as India and Pakistan” [1, 4, 14]. Some
major upsides of SMRs compared to larger nuclear reactors is that they are more
transportable, require less uranium fuel, which could potentially lead to fewer melt-
downs, and are more affordable at initial market prices. One of the major advantages
to SMR technology is the initial economic benefit. While large nuclear reactor sites
are extremely costly and difficult to finance, SMRs are more feasible and thus open
up the opportunity of harnessing nuclear energy for more parties globally. To illus-
Containment structure
Reactor vessel
Pressurizer
Turbine
Generator
Coolant circulation
Steam generator
Reactor core
Six-foot tall man

(for approximate size comparison)
Fig. 1.16 Illustration of a light water small modular nuclear reactor. (Source: GAO, based on
Department of Energy documentation, GAO-15-652; Courtesy of the U.S. Government
Accountability Office)
trate this matter, consider France for a moment. A French energy company, EDF, had
plans to build new large reactor sites in France and Finland. However, due to potential
safety concerns, “the plans went billions of euros over budget” [1, 4, 14].
The problem lies in the fact that large nuclear reactors take more time to build
and check safety features. Thus, SMR’s could help overcome this barrier of finan-
cial and time pressures. Evidently, SMRs have already begun to infiltrate our world
in tangible ways. However, SMRs are not as widespread as one might predict con-
sidering their many advantages. As governments and private entities begin to adopt
SMRs and harness the capability of SMRs to produce “cleaner energy,” it is also
important to consider the potential downsides and dangers associated with SMRs.
In Canada, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
report, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used as well and they are
listed below and illustrated by Fig. 1.17:
• Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for
zero-emission replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
• Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
• Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
Fig. 1.17 Resource extraction sites illustration. (Source: Organization of Canadian Nuclear
Industries)
1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications 21
Naturally, any new innovative technology has its own challenges at the beginning
of its introduction to society to be accepted. So we need to ask similar questions
about Small Modular Reactors (MSRs) to see “What challenges do SMRs face
before they are built?”
While small modular reactors should theoretically be cheaper than traditional
reactors, their actual costs will not be known until some designs are actually built
and operating, noted Scott Montgomery, an affiliate faculty member at the University
of Washington, who lectures and writes about global energy, in an article in The
Conversation last June 28, 2018 [16].
He added that while SMRs are designed to produce less nuclear waste than larger
reactors, disposal remains an issue.
The World Nuclear Association says licensing costs for an SMR are “potentially
a challenge” as they are not necessarily cheaper than they are for a large reactor.
However, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) notes that licensing
costs are a small part of the cost of developing the technology and include many
activities that would have to occur anyway to show the technology is reliable and
safe as illustrated in Fig. 1.18.
Like the USA, Canada does not yet have a permanent nuclear waste repository
although the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently work-
ing to select a site.
However, Canada is not as close as the USA for the SMS to operate in their back-
yard. Natural Resources Canada released an “SMR roadmap” in November, with a
series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management
for SMRs.
In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the
CNSC, which is reviewing their designs.
In November 2018, Natural Resource Canada (NRC) released a Small Modular
Road Roadmap “SMR roadmap” with a series of recommendation about regulation
readiness and waste management for SMRs.
In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), which is reviewing their designs.
Ultra-Safe Nuclear’s Micro Modular Reactor Energy System is designed to fit in
a standard shipping container. The company is partnering with Global First Power
and Ontario Power Generation, which are in talks with AECL and CNSC about
preparing a site for a reactor at the Chalk River Laboratories. (Ultra-Safe Nuclear)
as the conceptual illustration in Fig. 1.18.
The furthest project ahead is one involving Global First Power, in partnership
with Ontario Power Generation and Ultra-Safe Nuclear Corp. In April, it began
discussions with the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and
the CNSC about preparing a site for a reactor at AECL’s Chalk River Laboratories.
There have been plans to have an SMR demonstration plant built at an AECL site
by 2026.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are cur-
rently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China, and Russia.
Fig. 1.18 Cost per megawatt hour production. (Source: The National Energy Board)
1.7 Integral Modular Small Modular Reactor
Canada-based Terrestrial Energy set up in 2013 has designed the Integral MSR
(IMSR). This simplified MSR integrates the primary reactor components, including
primary heat exchangers to secondary clean salt circuit, in a sealed and replaceable
core vessel that has a projected life of 7 years. The IMSR will operate at 600–700 °C,
which can support many industrial process heat applications. The moderator is a
hexagonal arrangement of graphite elements. The fuel-salt is a eutectic of low-
enriched uranium fuel (UF4) and a fluoride carrier salt at atmospheric pressure.
Secondary loop coolant salt is ZrF4-KF. Emergency cooling and residual heat
removal are passive. Each plant would have space for two reactors, allowing 7-year
changeover, with the used unit removed for offsite reprocessing when it has cooled,
and fission products have decayed. Terrestrial Energy hopes to commission its first
commercial reactor by the 2020s (Fig. 1.19).
The IMSR is scalable and three sizes were initially presented: 80, 300, and 600
MWt, ranging from 30 to 300 MWe, but from 2016 the company is focused on 400
MWt/192 MWe. The total levelized cost of electricity from the largest is projected to be
competitive with natural gas. The smallest is designed for off-grid, remote power appli-
cations, and as prototype. Industrial heat at about 600 °C is also envisaged in 2016 plans.
1.7 Integral Modular Small Modular Reactor 23
Fig. 1.19 Conceptual layout of nuclear micro reactor
Compared with other MSR designs, the company deliberately avoids using
thorium-based fuels or any form of breeding, due to “their additional technical and
regulatory complexities.”
In November 2017, Terrestrial Energy completed phase 1 of the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC’s) pre-licensing vendor review of the
IMSR-400. The company plans to submit either an application seeking design cer-
tification or a construction permit application for the IMSR-400 no later than
October 2019 to the NRC. It hopes to commission its first commercial reactor in
the 2020s.
To meet the increasing energy demands of global prosperity, while protecting the
environment and the air in our cities that we breathe, we need a game changer.
Beside the USA the Canadian such as Terrestrial Energy is pushing toward Integral
Modular Small Reactor with advanced version of these modular reactor technology
as illustrated in Fig. 1.20.
Terrestrial Energy is developing revolutionary—not simply evolutionary—
nuclear technology. The IMSR® uses completely different nuclear technology for
its Advanced Modular Reactor—molten salt fuel instead of conventional solid fuel.
With this proven approach, IMSR® Generation IV nuclear power plants are more
affordable, cost-competitive, and versatile than conventional nuclear power plants.
IMSR® technology can be brought to market quickly. IMSR® power plants can
be built in 4 years and produce electricity or industrial heat at prices competitive
with fossil fuels, while emitting no greenhouse gases.
Fig. 1.20 Conceptual advanced modular reactor layout
Globally, other countries like the UK and China are in support of SMRs Nuclear
Power Plant (NPP) and other countries through Urenco a group of a nuclear fuel
company operating several Uranium enrichment plants in Germany, the Netherlands,
the USA, and the UK has called for European development of very small—4
MWe—“Plug and Play” inherently safe reactors based on graphite-moderated High
Temperature Reactor (HTR) concepts. See Fig. 1.21.
HTRs can potentially use thorium-based fuels, such as highly enriched or low-
enriched uranium with Th, U-233 with Th, and Pu with Th. Most of the experience
with thorium fuels has been in HTRs (see information paper on Thorium).
With negative temperature coefficient of reactivity (the fission reaction slows as
temperature increases) and passive decay heat removal, the reactors are inherently
safe. HTRs therefore are put forward as not requiring any containment building for
safety. They are sufficiently small to allow factory fabrication and will usually be
installed below ground level.
Three HTR designs in particular—PBMR, GT-MHR, and Areva’s SC-HTGR—
were contenders for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project in the USA
(see Next Generation Nuclear Plant section in the information page on US Nuclear
Power Policy). In 2012, Areva’s HTR was chosen. However, the only HTR project
currently proceeding is the Chinese HTR-PM.
Hybrid Power Technologies have a hybrid-nuclear Small Modular Reactor
(SMR) coupled to a fossil-fuel powered gas turbine.
HTR is seeking government support for a prototype “U-Battery” which would
run for 5–10 years before requiring refueling or servicing.
1.8 Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources
Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are a key part of the Department’s goal
to develop safe, clean, and affordable nuclear power options. The advanced SMRs
currently under development in the USA represent a variety of sizes, technology
options, and deployment scenarios. These advanced reactors, envisioned to vary in
size from a couple megawatts up to hundreds of megawatts, can be used for power
1.8 Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources 25
Fig. 1.21 A typical High Temperature Reactor (HTR) configuration
generation, process heat, desalination, or other industrial uses. SMRs can employ
light water as a coolant or other non-light water coolants such as a gas, liquid metal,
or molten salt [17].
Advanced SMRs offer such as relatively small size, reduced capital investment,
ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions
for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security, and
nonproliferation advantages.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has long recognized the transformational
value that advanced SMRs can provide to the nation’s economic, energy security,
and environmental outlook. Accordingly, the Department has provided substantial
support to the development of light water-cooled SMRs, which are under licensing
review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and will likely be deployed
in the next 10–15 years. The Department is also interested in the development of
SMRs that use non-traditional coolants such as liquid metals, salts, and helium
because of the safety, operational, and economic benefits they offer.
The US Department of Energy is supporting the development and deployment of
advanced SMRs to help meet the nation’s economic, environmental, and energy
security needs. The Office of Nuclear Energy commissioned three reports in
2017–2018 that examine potential financing opportunities and structures, resiliency

credits, and financial incentives for SMRs to help better understand the feasibility of
deploying this first-of-a-kind technology in the USA.
Throughout the twentieth century and today, the dramatic increase in energy use
for industrial, residential, transportation, and other purposes has been fueled largely
by the energy stored in fossil fuels and, more recently, supplied by nuclear power.
Many types of renewable electricity generating technologies can be developed and
deployed in smaller increments, and constructed more rapidly, than large-scale fos-
sil- or nuclear-based generation systems, thus allowing faster returns on capital
investments. However, with new generation of nuclear reactor as we know them as
GEN-IV, where small getting smaller to the level of Nuclear Micro Reactor, SMRs
are getting more appealing as a new source of renewable energy.
As part of renewable electricity generation technologies, SMRs are under series
consideration and they are being looked at. A renewable electricity generation tech-
nology harnesses a naturally existing energy flux, such as wind, sun, heat, or tides,
and converts that flux to electricity. Natural phenomena have varying time constants,
cycles, and energy densities. To tap these sources of energy, renewable electricity
generation technologies must be located where the natural energy flux occurs,
unlike conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear electricity-generating facilities, which
can be located at some distance from their fuel sources.
Renewable technologies also follow a paradigm somewhat different from
conventional energy sources in that renewable energy can be thought of as manufac-
tured energy, with the largest proportion of costs, external energy, and material
inputs occurring during the manufacturing process. Although conventional sources
such as nuclear- and coal-powered electricity generation have a high proportion of
capital-to-fuel costs, all renewable technologies, except for biomass-generated elec-
tricity (biopower), have no fuel costs. The trade-off is the ongoing and future cost of
fossil fuel against the present fixed capital costs of renewable energy technologies.
Scale economics likewise differs for renewables and conventional energy pro-
duction. Larger coal-fired and nuclear-powered generating facilities exhibit lower
average costs of generation than do smaller plants, realizing economies of scale
based on the size of the facility. Renewable electricity achieves economies of scale
primarily at the equipment manufacturing stage rather than through construction of
large facilities at the generating site. Large hydroelectric generating units are an
exception and have on-site economies of scale, but not to the same extent as coal-
and nuclear-powered electricity plants.
With the exception of hydropower, renewable technologies are often disruptive
and do not bring incremental changes to long-established electricity industry
sectors. As described by Bowen and Christensen [18], disruptive technologies pres-
ent a package of performance attributes that, at least at the outset, are not valued by
a majority of existing customers. Christensen [19] observes:
Disruptive technologies can result in worse product performance, at least in the
near term. Disruptive technologies bring to market very different value propositions
than had been available previously. Generally, disruptive technologies underper-
form established products in mainstream markets. But they have other features that
1.9 The Limit of Renewable Energy and Small Modular Reactors 27
a few fringe customers value. Disruptive technologies that may underperform today,
relative to what users in the market demand, may be fully performance-competitive
in that same market tomorrow.
Traditional sources of electricity generation at least initially outperform non-
hydropower renewables. The environmental attributes of renewables are the initial
value proposition that have brought them into the electricity sector. However, with
improvements in renewables technologies and increasing costs of generation from
conventional sources (particularly as costs of greenhouse gas production are incor-
porated), renewables may offer the potential to match the performance of traditional
generating sources.
1.9 T
he Limit of Renewable Energy and Small Modular
Reactors
Historically, the coal-fired power plants have been generating electricity in the USA
and globally to start with and, then with progress in technology of power plant, we
turned to fossil fuel and furthermore by improvement of gas turbine, we start using
gas fuel power plants to generate electricity for our needs. In 2015, coal plants gen-
erated 39% of the 3944 billion kWh of electricity generated in the USA. However,
coal’s contribution has steadily eroded down from 50% just a decade earlier.
Nuclear power is one of the most recent achievements in the long history of
harnessing energy, and one of the most controversial. A result of research originally
done to produce the atomic bomb, nuclear energy takes advantage of the incredible
potential energy within the atom in a productive instead of destructive way. As of
2011, nuclear energy provides nearly 20% of the electric power in the USA.
Aging infrastructure has made many older and smaller units uneconomical to
operate. Nearly 70% of coal-fired generating units comprising more than 50% of the
coal generating capacity are more than 40 years old. At the end of 2015, the coal-
fired generating units in the USA totaled 286 GW of capacity. In 2015 alone, 11.3
GW of coal-fired capacity were retired. The US Energy Information Administration
(EIA) projects that a total of 30 GW of coal-fired generating capacity will retire by
2025, 87% of which by the end of 2020. See Fig. 1.22, where the coal plant shut-
down are scheduled.
Tightening environmental regulations have accelerated the trend. New regulatory
standards require reductions in emissions of mercury, acid gases, and toxic metals.
These standards are scheduled to take effect in April 2015. The capital improve-
ments required to reduce these emissions would make many coal plants uneconomi-
cal to operate resulting in the bubble of closures over the next few years. Extensions
on compliance are being traded for pledges to close older, dirtier plants completely.
The growing public concern with climate change and CO2 emissions further
increases the pressure for coal plant closures.
Fig. 1.22 Coal plant shutdown schedule
When it comes to replacing retiring generation, coal now faces greater competition
from another fossil fuel, natural gas. Due to technological advances, accessible natural
gas reserves have increased dramatically. Natural gas is now available in greater quan-
tities and at low prices. While cleaner and, for the moment, cheaper, natural gas still
produces substantial CO2 emissions and fuel prices are volatile.
Along with the circumstance above, what comes to play was Nuclear Energy that
stated for peace around 1950’ time frame, where it went through so many genera-
tions (see this chapter), and now Generation-III of these power plant is opening
room for new and advanced Generation-IV.
If we compare each source of energy to nuclear one as illustrated in Fig. 1.23, we
obviously can see that nuclear goes a long way.
However, one may argue if we consider nuclear power energy as a big revolution
and evolution in our life since Manhattan project took place, thus the argument may
continue on the issue of the bigger is not necessarily the better energy resource.
However, it is very clear that nuclear energy can play a very significant long-term
role for meeting the world’s increasing supply and demand for energy, based on
growth in population globally, while simultaneously addressing challenges associ-
ated with global climate and environmental impact.
In today’s need for electricity and new source of renewable energy in a very cost-
efficient way has sent many countries/nations of the world, particularly the Asia/
Pacific Rim countries into quest of new and innovative source of energy beyond
what we have from our past technologies, and they all are actively engaged in a
major expansion of their nuclear energy complex. This is to the degree, to which
nuclear energy can address a long-term energy solution needs, either globally or
Fig. 1.23 Energy fuel density
regionally, where such resource of energy will be dictated by the peace and adequacy
of technical and policy solutions for safety, security, waste management, nonprolif-
eration, and finally greenhouse effects issues, as well as the capital cost of construc-
tion, where also energy efficiency has to be challenged. See Fig. 1.24.
Although the chart in Fig. 1.6 is an indication of wind energy to be the most
efficient way of producing electrical energy, we have to keep in our mind that not
always the wind blowing 24 × 7 around the year and probably there are some
regions, that the wind blowing is not as energetic as we needed to be in order to meet
the demand for the electricity.
In addition, here, we briefly describe each means of producing electrical energy
from each source that is mentioned in Fig. 1.6 as:
1. Biomass
Everything from crops left in the field to weedy trees, from animal waste to
humans’ garbage, can be recycled and transformed into usable energy. Biomass
is a very broad term covering a wide variety of materials that can be used as
Energy Efficiency
Percentage of energy input retained when converting fuel to electricity
least
Coal 29%
efficient
Oil 31%
Natural gas 38%
Biomass 52%
Solar 207%
Nuclear 290%
Hydro 317%
Geotherm 514%
most
Wind 1,164% efficient
Fig. 1.24 Energy efficiency chart. (Source: Energy Points, The Wall Street Journal)
energy resources. Since the sun’s energy is absorbed by all living things, humans,
animals, and especially plants, a lot of materials we see as leftovers are store-
houses of energy. For example, a tree uses photosynthesis to store energy in its
leaves and trunk. The tree is biomass. The tree can be burned to release the
energy in the form of heat.
2. Geothermal power
Geothermal energy is energy that is generated and stored within the earth. It
takes advantage of the Earth’s core heat to produce usable energy.
3. Hydropower
Water’s raw power provides the energy to produce enough electricity for 28 mil-
lion Americans every year and, as of 2011, creates nearly 10% all electricity in
the USA. Worldwide, hydropower generates more than 2.3 trillion kWh of
electricity per year, the energy equivalent to 3.6 billion barrels of oil.
4. Wind power
One of the most important alternative energy resources cannot be seen or
touched, but its power is obvious to anyone who is ever weathered a hurricane, a
tornado, or even a strong storm: wind. At its worst, wind can wreak havoc,
destroying everything in its path. At its best, it is a source of clean, efficient,
inexpensive energy; but as of 2011, it provides less than 3% of all the electricity
in the USA.
5. Solar power
The sun is primarily a source of light and heat. But can it be our primary source
of energy? Solar panels or thin films designed to collect sunlight are integral
parts of the process to generate electricity by way of the sun. The sun is our most
impressive source of energy. More than 1 million times larger than the earth, the
sun gives us ten times more energy than is stored in all the world’s reserves of
coal and oil every year. Despite this, as of 2011, solar power accounts for less
than 1% of all the electricity generated in the USA.
6. Fossil fuels
Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) provide the energy that powers our life
styles and our economy. Fossil fuels power everything from the planes in the sky
to the cars on the road. They heat our homes and light up the night. They are the
bedrock we base our energy mix on. But they are a limited resource.
7. Hydrogen power
Hydrogen can be used as a way of storing or transporting energy.
8. Energy basics
Electrical power is produced and distributed through three simple steps:
(a) generation
(b) transmission
(c) distribution
It is also clear that in meeting our low-carbon energy needs nuclear power should
play a crucial role. The energy density of nuclear fission means that just a few plants
can provide a large percentage of our electricity requirements. In Western liberal-
ized economies, however, traditional large nuclear power plants are not thriving.
Struggling utility companies now have difficulty financing projects that can cost
upwards of £10 billion and reactor vendors do not have a good record in reducing
costs or bringing new plants online on schedule.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could be a solution. Each unit would require a
smaller investment than large reactors and their modular nature means that they can be
built in a controlled factory environment where, with increased deployment, costs can
be brought down over time through improved manufacturing processes and economies
of volume. This learning-by-doing effect has helped the offshore wind industry achieve
impressive cost reductions and the nuclear industry could replicate their success.
Furthermore, the advanced and innovative SMRs could successfully address sev-
eral of these issues and offer simpler, standardized, and safer modular design by
being factory built, requiring smaller initial capital investment per power plant by
virtue of modularity, and having shorter construction time periods. The SMRs, also
could be small enough to be portable by means of transportation and occupy smaller
real estate due to smaller footprint. It could be implemented in an isolated location
without even accessing to the water as coolant media and advanced infrastructure
and with no access to power grid (i.e., remote military bases overseas) or could be
clustered in a single site to provide a multi-module, large capacity power plant.
To emphasize our argument here in defense of SMRs technology, we can express
what Matt Rooney [2] is saying, and that is, “SMRs could offer a number of advan-
tages in a flexible power system, including the potential for dual output, producing
other useful services in addition to electricity, like hydrogen or heat. SMRs could,
for example, provide a demand/grid management solution by redirecting the power
from an SMR to hydrogen production when renewable output is high.”
A new fleet of Small Modular Reactors (MSRs) would also provide a large quantity
of secure low-carbon energy, thus reducing reliance on imports of natural gas, electric-
ity via interconnectors, and biomass. Uranium, the main source of nuclear fuel, is an
inexpensive commodity traded worldwide, and the pioneers in this implementation of
source of energy, has the capability to both enrich uranium and manufacture its own
nuclear fuel. As we know by now, the nuclear power reduces import dependency from
multi-angle point of views.
1.10 S
mall Modular Reactor-Driven Renewable
and Sustainable Energy
In order to address this subject within this section, we too ask ourselves the ques-
tion; what is the most efficient source of energy?
The answer falls into the following fact that the true cost of electricity is difficult
to pin down. That is because a number of inputs comprise: the cost of fuel itself, the
cost of production, as well as the cost of dealing with the damage that fuel does to
the environment.
Energy Points, a company that does energy analysis for business, factors in these
myriad values in terms of what percentage of the energy input—fossil-fuel energy,
plus energy for production and energy for environmental mitigation—will become
usable electricity.
The chart in Fig. 1.25 shows that fossil fuels yield, on a national average, only a
portion of their original energy when converted into electricity. That is because they
are fossil fuels that require other fossil fuels to make the conversion into electricity;
their emissions, such as carbon dioxide, also require a lot of energy to be mitigated.
Renewables, however, have energy sources that are not fossil fuel and their only
other energy inputs are production and mitigating the waste from that production.
That actually results in more energy produced than fossil fuels put in. Wind, the
most efficient fuel for electricity, creates 1164% of its original energy inputs when
converted into electricity; on the other end of the efficiency spectrum, coal retains
just 29% of its original energy.
These are national averages, meaning that, for example, solar might be more
efficient in a place such as Arizona with lots of infrastructure and direct sunlight
than it is across the whole nation. Thus, a scenario such as Solar Farm technology
may very well be suited in such environment and arguably source of fresh water
shortage as a coolant media for fossil, gas and nuclear power plant, may also
enhance the solar power plant farm as only choice of solution to generate electricity
as well renewable energy approach, which may very well be cost-efficient for such
production.
However, no matter what, in any given area, electricity might come from a num-
ber of different sources, including oil, coal, gas, wind, hydropower, and solar. Each
has its own set of costs, both internal and external. From Energy Points:
1.10 Small Modular Reactor-Driven Renewable and Sustainable Energy 33
Fig. 1.25 Cost of

electricity per 1 MWh. Electricity Cost
(Source: EIA, The Wall
Cost to produce 1 MWh
Street Journal)
Natural gas
$66/MWh*
Hydro
$86
Coal
$95
Wind
$97
Geothermal
$102
Biomass
$113
Nuclear
$114
Petroleum
$125
Solar PV
$211
*2009 dollars for plants
entering service in 2016
Energy Points’ methodology measures environmental externalities and calculates

the energy it takes to mitigate them. For example, it quantifies the Green-House Gas
(GHG) emissions that result from turning coal and natural gas into electricity and
then calculates the energy it would take to mitigate those emissions through carbon
capture and sequestration. Water scarcity and contamination are quantified as the
energy that is required to durably supply water to that area. And in the case of solar
or wind energy, Energy Points incorporates the life cycle impact of manufacturing
and shipping the panels.
This metric is a more rounded calculation than merely cost or carbon footprint.
For example, hydroelectricity has the lowest carbon footprint of 4 gCO2/kWh, but
when Energy Points factors in the full life cycle of the different fuels, wind is the
most efficient. Additionally, natural gas is the cheapest fuel to produce electricity,
according to levelized cost data from the Environmental Protection Agency, which
measured the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed
financial life and duty cycle. Though it is cheap, it is not very efficient if you factor
in its production and emissions.
1.11 S
mall Modular Reactor-Driven Hydrogen Energy
for Renewable Energy Source
Research is going forward to produce hydrogen based on nuclear energy. Hydrogen

production processes necessitate high temperatures that can be reached in the
Fourth-Generation nuclear reactors (i.e., Small Modular Reactors). Technological
studies are now underway in order to define and qualify components that in the
future will enable us to retrieve and transfer heat produced by these reactors.
Hydrogen combustion turbine power could be one of the solutions to our future
energy needs particularly in on-peak demand for electricity, but until recently the
problem with hydrogen power was its production for use as an energy source.
Although hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe to human
being, actually capturing it for energy use is a process which itself usually requires
some form of fuel or energy [20].
Germany to take a drastic measurement to revise their nuclear energy policy that
had long heralded nuclear power plants as its main source of energy. For example,
while Germany decided to abandon all of their atomic power plants, the new energy
policy that is announced by Japan is taking steps to decrease its dependency on
nuclear as much as possible, while increasing and enhancing their Research and
Development (R&D) to quest for an alternative renewable energy source. Also, in
parallel effort the governed is promoting for a “Hydrogen Society” and use of
hydrogen as source of energy to pave their way to such goal, by making, for exam-
ple, Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV), where Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology Group at
the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) is
charge of such R&D [17].
Burning hydrogen in a combustion form that does not emit any carbon dioxide
(CO2), so it is considered as a source of clean energy that can greatly help reduce
the greenhouse gases effects. Although expectations are set so high, there comes
with the technical challenges and cost of ownership as well as return on invest-
ment of such research and development toward full production such source of
energy as part of renewable form. As an example, setting up expensive hydrogen
stations for FCVs, securing sufficient supplies of the gas and coming up with ways
to produce it without emitting carbon dioxide are just a few of those challenges
and hurdles [20].
Other industrial application of hydrogen is in oil refinery, where it is used to
process crude oil into refined fuel, such as gasoline and diesel, and for removing
contaminants, such as sulfur, from these fuels. See Fig. 1.26.
Total hydrogen consumption in oil refineries is estimated at 12.4 billion standard
cubic feet per day, which equates to an average hydrogen consumption of 100–200
standard cubic feet per barrel of oil processed. Hydrogen consumption in the oil
refining industry grew at a compound annual growth rate of 4% from 2000 to 2003,
and growth in consumption is expected to increase between 5% and 10% through to
2010 [Oil & Gas Journal, CryoGas International]. See Fig. 1.27 [21].
1.11 Small Modular Reactor-Driven Hydrogen Energy for Renewable Energy Source 35
Fig. 1.26 A typical oil refinery plant
The principal drivers of this growth in refinery hydrogen demand are:

• Low sulfur in diesel fuel regulations—hydrogen is used in refineries to remove
sulfur from fuels such as diesel.
• Increased consumption of low-quality “heavy” crude oil, which requires more
hydrogen to refine.
• Increased oil consumption in developing economies such as China and India.
Approximately 75% of hydrogen currently consumed worldwide by oil refiner-
ies is supplied by large hydrogen plants that generate hydrogen from natural gas or
other hydrocarbon fuels, with the balance being recovered from hydrogen-containing
streams generated in the refinery process.
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) (see Figs. 1.28 and 1.29) technology is used in
both hydrogen generation plants and for hydrogen recovery.
Hydrogen is used in a range of other industries, including chemical production,
metal refining, food processing, and electronics manufacturing. Hydrogen is either
delivered to customers in these industries as compressed or liquid hydrogen or gen-
erated on-site from water using a process known as electrolysis or from natural gas
using a process call reforming. In certain applications, there is a gradual shift toward
on-site generation to replace delivered compressed or liquid hydrogen, largely
based on the lower cost of new on-site hydrogen generation technologies when
compared to delivered hydrogen [20].
Fig. 1.27 Hydrogen PSA unit—HYDROSWING. (Courtesy of Mahler Advanced Gas Systems)
Fig. 1.28 A typical metal refining plant

1.11 Small Modular Reactor-Driven Hydrogen Energy for Renewable Energy Source 37
LN2
7. Flash tank
nitrogen tank
6. Liquid
N2
Liquid nitrogen lorry
4. Hydrogen circulation
Expansion turbine
compressor
Purification H2
2. PSA devise
Heat exchanger Expansion

value
3. Liquefier
LH2
Flare 5. Liquid
Feeding material stack Liquid hydrogen lorry
hydrogen hydrogen tank
Liquid
(Electrolysis) hydrogen
1. Material hydrogen
compressor
High pressure
Compressed hydrogen trailer
hydrogen
8. Hydrogen charge
compressor
Fig. 1.29 Flow of liquid hydrogen production facilities
Other applications of hydrogen in industry that worth to mention are listed

as below:
1. Weather balloons in meteorologist, where these balloons are fitted with equip-
ment to record information necessary to study the climates.
2. Hydrogen is used in fertilizer and paint industries.
3. Food industries, where in food it is used as element to make hydrogenated veg-
etable oils, while using nickel as a catalyst, solid fat substances are produced.
4. Welding companies use the hydrogen as part of welding torches element. These
torches are utilized for steel melting.
5. Chemical industries use them for metal extraction. For example, hydrogen is
needed to treat mined tungsten to make them pure.
6. In home uses, hydrogen peroxide can be used in non-medical ways. Other appli-
cations include a pest controller in gardens, removing stains on clothing and
functioning as a bleaching agent for cleaning homes.
As we can see, hydrogen is an important utility for numerous applications in mul-
tiple industries. Users in a wide range of industries can benefit from operating a cost-
effective hydrogen plant and reduce their production costs significantly. See Fig. 1.9.
As we know from our knowledge of chemistry, hydrogen is the lightest and most
common element in the cosmos. Its atomic number is 1. In its elemental state,
hydrogen is rare. But it is one of the components of water and vital to life. Hydrogen
alone does not exist as a natural resource, and it needs to be produced by separating
from other elements and molecules, such water as we have vast oceans sounding us.
By far the most common method of producing hydrogen in industry currently is due
to stripping hydrogen from natural gas using a process known as steam reforming.
Another way of producing hydrogen is through electric hydrolysis as an alternate
to steam reforming approach and both methods were mentioned as below.
Currently, fossil fuels, including naphtha, natural gas and coal, are the main
sources of hydrogen, which is generated by “steam reforming” method, in which
steam is added to methane to yield hydrogen. A huge amount of hydrogen is also
produced as a by-product from the production of caustic soda plants and from
coke ovens.
In contrast, electric hydrolysis is a relatively simple process and methods in
which production of hydrogen takes place any high school chemistry laboratory
course, where two electrodes, one with positive charge known as anode and other
negatively charged know as cathode by a battery are placed into water. Result of
such induced electric current through water splits the hydrogen ion from oxygen
with positive hydrogen ion being attracted to cathode a negative oxygen ion goes
toward anode. Once the ions touch the electrodes the hydrogen gains and electron
while oxygen loses one and they are creating fully fledged atoms of hydrogen and
oxygen, which then rise in the water and they can be collected separately at the top
of water container.
The Japanese organization, NEDO published a white paper on hydrogen energy
in July 2012 that states the importance of promoting hydrogen-related products,
which in Japan are expected to develop into a market worth ¥1 trillion by 2030 and
¥8 trillion by 2050 [22].
References
1. B. Zohuri, P. McDaniel, Advanced Smaller Modular Reactors: An Innovative Approach
to Nuclear Power, 1st edn. (Springer, Cham, 2019). https://www.springer.com/us/
book/9783030236816
2. B. Zohuri, P. McDaniel, Combined Cycle Driven Efficiency for Next Generation Nuclear
Power Plants: An Innovative Design Approach, 2nd edn. (Springer, Cham, 2018). https://www.
springer.com/gp/book/9783319705507
3. B. Zohuri, P. McDaniel, C.R. De Oliveria, Advanced nuclear open air-Brayton cycles for highly
efficient power conversion. Nucl. Technol. 192(1), 48–60 (2015). https://doi.org/10.13182/
NT14-42
4. B. Zohuri, Combined Cycle Driven Efficiency for Next Generation Nuclear Power Plants: An
Innovative Design Approach (2016)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-capacity-climate-goals-power-supply-
iea-1.5152080
7. https://www.ft.com/content/bcffe4d2-2402-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d
References 39
8. B. Zohuri, Magnetic Confinement Fusion Driven Thermonuclear Energy, 1st edn. (Springer
Publishing Company, Cham, 2017)
9. B. Zohuri, Inertial Confinement Fusion Driven Thermonuclear Energy, 1st edn. (Springer
10. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reac-
tors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
12. B. Zohuri, Heat Pipe Application in Fission Driven Nuclear Power Plants, 1st edn. (Springer
13. B. Zohuri, Heat Pipe Design and Technology: Modern Applications for Practical Thermal
Management, 2nd edn. (Springer Publishing Company, Cham, 2016)
14. K. Stacey, Small Modular Reactors Are Nuclear Energy’s Future, Financial Times, 25 July
2016
15. Small Modular Reactors: A Window on Nuclear Energy, Andlinger Center, Princeton

University, June 2015 http://acee.princeton.edu/distillates
16. https://theconversation.com/the-nuclear-industry-is-making-a-big-bet-on-small-power-
plants-94795
17. B. Zohuri, Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources, 1st edn. (Springer
18. Bowen and Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave” HBR, January-

February (1995)
19. CM. Christensen, Dilemma When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard
Business Review Press, Boston, Massachustts (1997)
20. B. Zohuri, Nuclear Energy for Hydrogen Generation through Intermediate Heat Exchangers:
A Renewable Source of Energy (Springer Publishing Company, Cham, 2016)
21. http://www.xebecinc.com/applications-industrial-hydrogen.php
22. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/12/national/japan-rises-challenge-becoming-
hydrogen-society
Chapter 2
Nuclear Industry Trend Toward Small
and Micro Nuclear Power Plants
2.1 Introduction
Today, due partly to the high capital cost of large power reactors generating electricity
via the steam cycle and partly to the need to service small electricity grids under about
4 GWe, there is a move to develop smaller units. These may be built independently or
as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required (see
Sect. 2.2). Economies of scale are envisaged due to the numbers produced. There are
also moves to develop independent small units for remote sites. Small units are seen
as a much more manageable investment than big ones whose cost often rivals the
capitalization of the utilities concerned.
An additional reason for interest in SMRs is that they can more readily slot into
brownfield sites in place of decommissioned coal-fired plants, the units of which are
seldom very large—more than 90% are under 500 MWe, and some are under
50 MWe. In the USA, coal-fired units retired over 2010–12 averaged 97 MWe, and
those expected to retire over 2015–25 average 145 MWe [1].
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are defined as nuclear reactors generally
300 MWe equivalent or less, designed with modular technology using module fac-
tory fabrication, pursuing economies of series production and short construction
times. This definition, from the World Nuclear Association, is closely based on
those from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the US Nuclear
Energy Institute. Some of the already-operating small reactors mentioned or tabu-
lated below do not fit this definition, but most of those described do fit it [1].
SMR development is proceeding in Western countries with a lot of private invest-
ment, including small companies. The involvement of these new investors indicates
a profound shift taking place from government-led and -funded nuclear R&D to that
led by the private sector and people with strong entrepreneurial goals, often linked
to a social purpose. That purpose is often deployment of affordable clean energy,
without carbon dioxide emissions.
42 2 Nuclear Industry Trend Toward Small and Micro Nuclear Power Plants
As we stated in the preface of the book, nuclear reactor is getting smaller and it
is opening up some big opportunities for the industry that are involved with design
and manufacturing of these reactors.
A handful of micro reactor designs are under development in the USA, and they
could be ready to roll out within the next decade.
These plug-and-play reactors will be small enough to transport by truck and
could help solve energy challenges in a number of areas, ranging from remote com-
mercial or residential locations to military bases. As illustrated in Fig. 2.1, micro
reactors have a big potentials.
Some of their features that we can state that Nuclear Micro Reactors (NMRs) are
not defined by their fuel form or coolant. Instead, they have three main features:
1. Factory fabricated: All components of a micro reactor would be fully assembled
in a factory and shipped out to location. This eliminates difficulties associated
with large-scale construction, reduces capital costs, and would help get the reac-
tor up and running quickly.
2. Transportable: Smaller unit designs will make micro reactors very transportable.
This would make it easy for vendors to ship the entire reactor by truck, shipping
vessel, airplane, or railcar.
3. Self-regulating: Simple and responsive design concepts will allow micro reac-
tors to self-regulate. They will not require a large number of specialized opera-
tors and would utilize passive safety systems that prevent any potential for
overheating or reactor meltdown.
The benefits of these type of reactors lays in their design. Micro reactor designs
vary, but most would be able to produce 1–20 MW of thermal energy that could be
used directly as heat or converted to electric power. They can be used to generate
clean and reliable electricity for commercial use or for non-electric applications
such as district heating, water desalination, and hydrogen fuel production.
Other benefits are included as follows:
• Seamless integration with renewables within microgrids.
• Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural
disasters.
• A longer core life, operating for up to 10 years without refueling.
• Can be quickly removed from sites and exchanged for new ones.
Most designs will require fuel with a higher concentration of uranium-235 that is
not currently used in today’s reactors although some may benefit from use of high
temperature moderating materials that would reduce fuel enrichment requirements
while maintaining the small system size.
The US Department of Energy supports a variety of advanced reactor designs,
including gas, liquid metal, molten salt, and heat pipe-cooled concepts. American
micro reactor developers are currently focused on gas and heat pipe-cooled designs
that could debut as early as the mid-2020s.
2.1 Introduction 43
Fig. 2.1 Big potential of

small reactors. (Source: US
Energy Information
Administration)
2.2 Modular Construction Using Small Reactor Units
Westinghouse and IRIS partners have outlined the economic case for modular
construction of their IRIS design (about 330 MWe), and the argument applies simi-
larly to other similar or smaller units. They pointed out that IRIS with its size and
simple design is ideally suited for modular construction in the sense of progressively
building a large power plant with multiple small operating units. The economy of
scale is replaced here with the economy of serial production of many small and
simple components and prefabricated sections. They expected that construction of
the first IRIS unit would be completed in 3 years, with subsequent reduction to only
2 years.
Site layouts have been developed with multiple single units or multiple twin
units. In each case, units will be constructed so that there is physical separation suf-
ficient to allow construction of the next unit while the previous one is operating and
generating revenue. In spite of this separation, the plant footprint can be very com-
pact so that a site with, for instance, three IRIS single modules providing 1000 MWe
capacity would be similar or smaller in size than one with a comparable total power
single unit.
Many small reactors are designed with a view to serial construction and collec-
tive operation as modules of a large plant. In this sense, they are “small modular
reactors”—SMRs—but not all small reactors are of this kind (e.g., the Toshiba 4S)
though the term SMR tends to be used loosely for all small designs.
Eventually plants comprising a number of SMRs are expected to have a capital
cost and production cost comparable with larger plants. But any small unit such as
this will potentially have a funding profile and flexibility otherwise impossible with
larger plants. As one module is finished and starts producing electricity, it will gen-
erate positive cash flow for the next module to be built. Westinghouse estimated that
1000 MWe delivered by three IRIS units built at 3 year intervals financed at 10% for
10 years require a maximum negative cash flow less than $700 million (compared
with about three times that for a single 1000 MWe unit). For developed countries,
small modular units offer the opportunity of building as necessary; for developing
countries, it may be the only option because their electric grids cannot take 1000+
MWe single units. The Westinghouse SMR is a >225 MWe integral Pressurized
Water Reactor (PWR) with all primary components located inside the reactor vessel.
The Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as illustrated in Fig. 2.2, is an
800 MWt/225 MWe class integral PWR with passive safety systems and reactor
internals including fuel assemblies based closely on those in the AP1000 (89 assem-
blies 2.44 m active length, <5% enrichment).
The steam generator is above the core fed by eight horizontally mounted axial-
flow coolant pumps. The reactor vessel will be factory-made and shipped to site by
rail, then installed below ground level in a containment vessel 9.8 m diameter and
27 m high. The reactor vessel module is 25 m high and 3.5 m diameter. It has a
24-month refueling cycle and 60-year service life. Passive safety means no operator
intervention is required for 7 days in the event of an accident. Daily load following
2.2 Modular Construction Using Small Reactor Units 45
Fig. 2.2 Artistic depiction of Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor
can be performed from 100% to 20% power at a rate of 5% change per minute; in
continuous load following, the plant can perform load changes of ±10% power at a
rate of 2% per minute.
Westinghouse SMR utilizes passive safety systems and proven components—
realized in the industry-leading AP1000® reactor design—to achieve the highest
level of safety and reduce the number of components required. This approach will
provide licensing, construction, and operation certainty that no other SMR supplier
can match.
The Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor offers the following advantages and
are included as:
• Passive safety features designed to shut the plant down automatically and keep it
cool without human intervention or AC power for 7 days.
• Reduced fuel, resulting in reduced radioactivity amounts released in the case of
an accident.
• Passive heat removal with on-site water inventory, which relies on the natural
forces of evaporation, condensation, and gravity.
• Underground containment.
• Innovative, integral design eliminates a number of accident scenarios.
• Improved energy security and reduction in the overall life cycle carbon footprint
when used to provide power for liquid transportation fuel from resources of oil
sands, oil shale, and coal-to-liquid applications.
Comparison of other clean energy source with the Westinghouse SMR is illus-
trated in Fig. 2.3 here.
Innovative load of this SMR following capabilities are listed as:
• The SMR is capable of economically handling the unique challenges of provid-
ing baseload power on smaller grids and those with non-steady power sources.
• The SMR utilizes the Westinghouse mechanical shim (MSHIM™) operating
strategy to follow grid changes.
• MSHIM allows easy transition between load follow and baseload operation with
minimal operator interaction.
Clean Energy Comparison

Average Wind Power
225 MWe on 60,000 acres of land
Average Solar Power

225 MWe on 2400 acres of land
The Westinghouse SMR

225+ MWe on only 15 acres of land
Fig. 2.3 Clean energy comparison
• Operational costs are lowered due to minimized chemistry change requirements.

• Daily load follow can be performed from 100% to 20% power at a rate of 5%
change per minute; in continuous load follow, the plant can perform load changes
of ±10% power at a rate of 2% per minute.
Finally, the Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor features as illustrated in
Fig. 2.4 at a glance are listed below:
• Electric output: >225+ MWe
• Reactor power: 800 MWt
• Design life: 60 years
• Fuel type: 17 × 17 RFA, <5% enriched UO2
• Total site area: ~15 acres
• Passive safety systems
• Rail, truck, or barge shippable
• Compact integral design
• Simplified system configuration, standardized, fully modular approach
• Minimized footprint, maximized power output
• 24 Months between refueling
As part of nuclear industry efforts to make small construction of these reactors
smaller, Westinghouse approach toward Nuclear Micro Reactor is appeared in the
form of eVinci ™ that Westinghouse is currently developing this reactor.
eVinci micro reactor, a next-generation, is very small modular reactor for decen-
tralized generation markets.
The eVinci micro reactor’s innovative design is a combination of nuclear fission,
space reactor technologies, and 50+ years of commercial nuclear systems design,
engineering, and innovation. The eVinci micro reactor aims to create affordable and
Fig. 2.4 The Westinghouse

SMR Core
sustainable power with improved reliability and minimal maintenance, particularly

for energy consumers in remote locations. The small size of the generator allows for
easier transportation and rapid, on-site installation in contrast to large, centralized
stations. The reactor core is designed to run for more than 10 years, eliminating the
need for frequent refueling.
The key benefits of the eVinci micro reactor are attributed to its solid core and
advanced heat pipes technologies [2, 3]. The core encapsulates fuel to significantly
reduce proliferation risk and enhances overall safety for the user. The heat pipes
enable passive core heat extraction and inherent power regulation, allowing autono-
mous operation and inherent load following capabilities. These advanced technolo-
gies together make the eVinci micro reactor a pseudo “solid-state” reactor with
minimal moving parts and as illustrated in Fig. 2.5 is very mobile and portable as well.
As part of our question that was stated in Sect. 1.4 “How Small is Small?”, we
may say the small nuclear reactors are not anything actually new technologically.
India has the most, with 18 reactors with capacity ranging between 90 and 220 MW,
which were built between 1981 and 2011.
The United States, Russia, China, India, and France with the smallest nuclear
submarines known as Rubis-Class attack boat (i.e., Fig. 2.6) with 2600 dwt and the
UK with Vanguard Class Ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) of 15,900 dwt
Fig. 2.5 eVinci micro reactor held in a transport container. (Source: Courtesy of Westinghouse
Corporation)
Fig. 2.6 French integral Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) for submarine
submerged that has a single reactor (i.e., Fig. 2.7) operate hundreds of nuclear
submarines and aircraft carriers. Russia has dozens of nuclear-powered icebreakers
cruising around the Arctic, and its first floating nuclear power plant has been com-
pleted and will be deployed in 2019 near the town of Pevek in East Siberia.
The Siberian plant will replace four 12-MW reactors the Soviets built in the
1970s to power a remote town and administrative center, as well as mining and oil
drilling operation.
Bear in your mind that the work on nuclear power ships and nuclear marine propul-
sion first was started in the 1940s, and the first test reactor started up in the USA in 1953.
The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955 (i.e., Fig. 2.8).
Fig. 2.7 UK Nuclear submarine layout
Fig. 2.8 Portrait of USS Nautilus Submarine
This marked the transition of submarines from slow underwater vessels to

arships capable of sustaining 20–25 knots submerged for weeks on end. The sub-
w
marine had come into its own.
Nautilus led to the parallel development of further (Skate-class) submarines,
powered by single Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), and an aircraft carrier, USS
Enterprise (i.e., Fig. 2.9), powered by eight Westinghouse reactor units in 1960.
A cruiser, USS Long Beach (i.e., Fig. 2.10), followed in 1961 and was powered by
two of these early units. Remarkably, the Enterprise remained in service to the end
of 2012.
Other countries such as China also involved with small reactors. China General
Nuclear Group (CGN) has two small ACPR designs: an ACPR100 and ACPR50S,
both with passive cooling for decay heat and 60-year design life. Both have standard
type fuel assemblies and fuel enriched to <5% with burnable poison giving 30-month
refueling. The ACPR100 is an integral PWR, 450 MWt, 140 MWe, having 69 fuel
assemblies. Reactor pressure vessel is 17 m high and 4.4 m inside diameter, operat-
ing at 310 °C. It is designed as a module in larger plant and would be installed
underground. The applications for these are similar to those for the ACP100.
As illustrated in Fig. 2.11, the Ocean Star-V version would be on a barge, as a
floating nuclear power plant.
The offshore ACPR50S is 200 MWt, 60 MWe with 37 fuel assemblies, and four
external steam generators. Reactor pressure vessel is 7.4 m high and 2.5 m inside
diameter, operating at 310 °C. It is designed for mounting on a barge as Floating
Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP). Following approval as part of the 13th Five-Year Plan
for innovative energy technologies, CGN announced construction start on the first
FNPP at Bohai shipyard in November 2016 for trial operation in 2019, supplying
power and desalination.
Fig. 2.9 USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

Fig. 2.10 USS Long Beach Cruiser
Fig. 2.11 CGN’s floating reactor concept

Following our discussion how small is small, we may say that, even though the
reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple
reactors. NuScale, for example, wants to install 12 reactors at its initial Idaho site.
Based on the company’s latest projections, it will have a total capacity of 720 MW.
A global trend toward small and smaller reactors are gained momentum in recent
years starting with Generation IV (GEN-IV) reactors research study and designs as
well as fabrication of them. Private and state-owned companies are seeking to build
these small power plants in about a dozen countries so far, including the USA
and the UK.
France, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear energy, and
Canada may soon join the fray.
This global interest in small modular reactors comes as more standard nuclear
reactors are being decommissioned than are under construction.
Pushing the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to smaller footnote is led by the
Westinghouse Corporation one of pointers in Nuclear Power Industry by developing
eVinci micro reactor. The eVinci micro reactor’s innovative design is a combination
of nuclear fission, space reactor technologies, and 50+ years of commercial nuclear
systems design, engineering, and innovation. The eVinci micro reactor aims to cre-
ate affordable and sustainable power with improved reliability and minimal mainte-
nance, particularly for energy consumers in remote locations. The small size of the
generator allows for easier transportation and rapid, on-site installation in contrast
to large, centralized stations. The reactor core is designed to run for more than
10 years, eliminating the need for frequent refueling.
advanced heat pipes. The core encapsulates fuel to significantly reduce proliferation
risk and enhances overall safety for the user. The heat pipes enable passive core heat
extraction and inherent power regulation, allowing autonomous operation and
inherent load following capabilities. These advanced technologies together make
the eVinci micro reactor a pseudo “solid-state” reactor with minimal moving parts.
Key Attributes of eVinci Micro Reactor:
• Transportable energy generator.
• Fully factory built, fueled, and assembled.
• Combined heat and power—200 kWe to 5 MWe.
• Up to 600 °C process heat.
• 5–10-year life with walkaway inherent safety.
• Target less than 30 days on-site installation.
• Autonomous load management capability.
• Unparalleled proliferation resistance.
• High reliability and minimal moving parts.
• Green field decommissioning and remediation.
Figure 2.12 pretty much is indication of these attributes.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is funding a venture that will put together
Westinghouse’s 25-MWe eVinci micro reactor for nuclear demonstration readiness
by 2022.
2.3 A Novel Heat Pipe Reactor 53
Fig. 2.12 Westinghouse eVinci™ micro reactor attributions
The company on March 27 stated it is going to present $12.9 million of the

e stimated $28.6 million Westinghouse wants for a venture to arrange the micro
reactor for an illustration, together with for design, evaluation, licensing to fabri-
cate, siting, and testing. eVinci is one in all three Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
and the primary micro reactor whose first-of-a-kind growth the DOE is subsidizing
below a December 2017–issued “U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear
Technology Development” funding alternative announcement (FOA). The Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) advertises availability of grant support.
The funding bulletins are a part of a latest ramp up in consideration and efforts
by the US authorities to spice up growth of superior nuclear applied sciences. Also
on March 27, a bipartisan group of senators launched laws to bolster innovation for
superior reactors. Lawmakers stated that the USA, which as soon as led efforts to
invent and commercialize key nuclear applied sciences, has “slipped” in manage-
ment, and it dangers dropping out to Russia and China.
2.3 A Novel Heat Pipe Reactor
For Westinghouse, the federal funding poses a major opportunity to boost develop-
ment of its novel micro reactor technology in a highly competitive environment.
(For more details, see “Big Gains for Tiny Nuclear Reactors,” in POWER’s
November 2018 issue) [4]. According to Westinghouse, the eVinci reactor is an
innovative combination of nuclear fission and space reactor technologies that

integrates the company’s long-standing experience in commercial nuclear systems
design, engineering, and innovation (i.e., Fig. 2.13).
The small size of the generator allows for easier transportation and rapid, on-site
installation in contrast to large, centralized stations, the company says (i.e.,
Fig. 2.14). And because the reactor core is designed to run for more than 10 years,
eliminating the need for frequent refueling, Westinghouse is marketing it as an off-
grid or microgrid solution.
But, according to some experts, eVinci’s technological simplicity is what makes
it unique. The reactor is envisioned to operate autonomously. Its reactor core is a
solid-steel monolith that features channels for fuel pellets, the moderator (metal
hydride), and heat pipes, which are arranged in a hexagonal pattern. See Fig. 2.15.
Figure 2.15 is showing the core and surrounding structure cross-section of eVinci
Novel Heat Pipe Micro Reactor, while Fig. 2.16 is layout of same reactor presenting
the passive cooling system of heat pipes in it.
The monolith will serve as the second fission product barrier (the fuel pellet is
the first barrier) as well as the thermal medium between the fuel channels and heat
pipes. The heat pipes will extract heat from the core using a technology based on
thermal conductivity and fluid phase transition.
However, Westinghouse admits that it is fielding a number of challenges related
to the deployment of the micro reactor. While the eVinci will use fuel enriched to
19.75 wt%, the industrial scale amount of uranium enriched to more than 5% is
limited. The DOE is scrambling to resolve that issue, announcing in January that it
would demonstrate—by October 2020—the production of high-assay low-enriched
uranium (HALEU) fuel at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon,
Kentucky. On February 27, meanwhile, Maryland-based X-Energy, another DOE
funding recipient (see below), dedicated its HALEU-based TRISO-X fuel fabrica-
tion pilot line at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Westinghouse also notes that while eVinci reactors will be manufactured and
assembled in a factory, first reactor startup should also happen at that site, which means
the factory will need to be equipped with radio protection equipment, safety and secu-
rity systems, and have a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Fig. 2.13 eVinci™ micro reactor augmenting heat pipe

2.3 A Novel Heat Pipe Reactor 55
Fig. 2.14 Transportability of eVinci illustration
Fig. 2.15 A cross-section of Westinghouse’s eVinci reactor. (Source: Courtesy of Westinghouse

Corporation)
Transportation must also take into account safety and security. And because the reactor
will be operated autonomously, Westinghouse will need to field first-of-their-kind
challenges in licensing, instrumentation, remote reactor monitoring, and logistics.
Fig. 2.16 Exposure of eVinci cross-section from different angle. (Source: Courtesy of

Westinghouse Corporation)
Distinct from other small reactor designs, the eVinci is a heat pipe reactor, using
a fluid in numerous sealed horizontal steel heat pipes to conduct heat from the hot
fuel (where the fluid vaporizes) to the external condenser (where the fluid releases
latent heat of vaporization) with heat exchanger. No pumps are needed to effect con-
tinuous isothermal vapor/liquid internal flow at low pressure. The principle is well
established on a small scale, but here a liquid metal is used as the fluid and reactor
sizes up to several megawatts are envisaged. Experimental work on heat pipe reac-
tors for space has been with much smaller units (about 100 kWe), using sodium as
the fluid. They have been developed since 1994 as a robust and low technical risk
system for space exploration with an emphasis on high reliability and safety.
The eVinci reactors would be fully factory built and fueled. As well as power
generation, process heat to 600 °C would be available. Units would have 5–10-year
operational lifetime, with walkaway safety due to inherent feedback diminishing the
nuclear reaction with excess heat, also effecting load following. Although eVinci is
not considered as an Advanced Small Modular Reactor (AdvSMR), due to its small
scale size is a good candidate for space based source of energy and military applica-
tion of it due to its transportability and mobility feature as it is mentioned in above
and falls into category of Micro Reactor for lack of better classification choice. As
it is illustrated in Fig. 2.16, the eVinci micro reactor’s innovative design is a combi-
nation of nuclear fission, space reactor technologies, and 50+ years of commercial
nuclear systems design, engineering, and innovation. The eVinci micro reactor aims
to create affordable and sustainable power with improved reliability and minimal
maintenance, particularly for energy consumers in remote locations. The small size
of the generator allows for easier transportation and rapid, on-site installation in
contrast to large, centralized stations. The reactor core is designed to run for more
than 10 years, eliminating the need for frequent refueling.
2.4 Heat Pipe Brief Summary 57
advanced heat pipes. The core encapsulates fuel to significantly reduce proliferation
risk and enhances overall safety for the user. The heat pipes enable passive core heat
extraction and inherent power regulation, allowing autonomous operation and
inherent load following capabilities. These advanced technologies together make
the eVinci micro reactor a pseudo “solid-state” reactor with minimal moving parts
and its attributes were listed as before.
Heat pipes operate in a passive mode at relatively low pressures, less than an
atmosphere. Each individual heat pipe contains only a small amount of working
fluid, which is fully encapsulated in a sealed steel pipe. There is no primary cooling
loop, hence no mechanical pumps, valves, or large-diameter primary loop piping
typically found in all commercial reactors today. Heat pipes simply transport heat
from the in-core evaporator section to the ex-core condenser in continuous isother-
mal vapor/liquid internal flow. Heat pipes offer a new and unique means to remove
heat from a reactor core [2, 3].
Furthermore, Westinghouse is developing the eVinci micro reactor (Fig. 2.16),
which ranges from 200 kW to 15 MW. Westinghouse says that it could develop and
demonstrate the eVinci micro reactor in less than 6 years, owing to its size and “high
technology readiness level of individual components.” For now, it wants to develop
a full-scale electrical demonstration unit by 2019 and then build an integral test with
nuclear fuel, aiming for commercial deployment by 2024.
“These challenges require careful risk management and planning, but they are
not considered showstoppers and their management is part of the Westinghouse
eVinci reactor development program,” the company says.
Bear in mind that the pioneer and the frontrunner in Small Modular Reactor
(SMR) race, NuScale expects the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
approve its 60 MW design by September 2020, with commercial deployment slated
in the mid-2020s. At the end of September, NuScale announced it selected Virginia-
based BWX Technologies and spinoff of Babcock & Wilcox to start the engineering
work to manufacture its SMR. However, the company is also evaluating several
micro reactor concepts in the 1–10 MW range, and two of these light water micro
reactor concepts—the single-unit NuScale Power Module (NPM) and the reduced-
size NPM—could leverage current design and licensing efforts.
2.4 Heat Pipe Brief Summary
A heat pipe is a two-phase heat transfer device with a very high effective thermal
conductivity. It is a vacuum tight device consisting of an envelope, a working
fluid, and a wick structure. As shown in Fig. 2.17, the heat input vaporizes the
liquid working fluid inside the wick in the evaporator section. The saturated
vapor, carrying the latent heat of vaporization, flows toward the colder condenser
section. In the condenser, the vapor condenses and gives up its latent heat. The
condensed liquid returns to the evaporator through the wick structure by capillary
Heat Out
w
Vapor Flo
eturn
Liquid R
Heat In
Fig. 2.17 A simple physical configuration of heat pipe
action. The phase change processes and two-phase flow circulation continue as
long as the temperature gradient between the evaporator and condenser are
maintained.
Heat pipes function by absorbing heat at the evaporator end of the cylinder,
boiling and converting the fluid to vapor. The vapor travels to the condenser end,
rejects the heat, and condenses to liquid. The condensed liquid flows back to the
evaporator, aided by gravity. This phase change cycle continues as long as there is
heat (i.e., warm outside air) at the evaporator end of the heat pipe. This process
occurs passively and there is no external electrical energy required.
At the hot interface of a heat pipe a liquid in contact with a thermally conductive
solid surface turns into a vapor by absorbing heat from that surface. The vapor then
travels along the heat pipe to the cold interface and condenses back into a liquid—
releasing the latent heat. The liquid then returns to the hot interface through either
capillary action, centrifugal force, or gravity, and the cycle repeats. Due to the very
high heat transfer coefficients for boiling and condensation, heat pipes are highly
effective thermal conductors. The effective thermal conductivity varies with heat
pipe length and can approach 100 kW/(m K) for long heat pipes, in comparison with
approximately 0.4 kW/(m K) for copper.
Heat pipes employ evaporative cooling to transfer thermal energy from one point
to another by the evaporation and condensation of a working fluid or coolant. Heat
pipes rely on a temperature difference between the ends of the pipe and cannot
lower temperatures at either end below the ambient temperature (hence they tend to
equalize the temperature within the pipe) (Fig. 2.18).
Heat pipes have an envelope, a wick, and a working fluid. Heat pipes are designed
for very long-term operation with no maintenance, so the heat pipe wall and wick
must be compatible with the working fluid. Some material/working fluids pairs that
appear to be compatible are not. For example, water in an aluminum envelope will
develop large amounts of non-condensable gas over a few hours or days, preventing
normal operation of the heat pipe.
2.4 Heat Pipe Brief Summary 59
CONDENSER PHASE CHANGE TO LIQUID
HEAT OUT HEAT OUT
Vapor flows through center
HEAT IN HEAT IN
EVAPORATOR PHASE CHANGE TO VAPOR
Fig. 2.18 Internal schematic heat pipe structure
2.4.1 Heat Pipe Materials and Working Fluids
Since heat pipes were rediscovered by George Grover in 1963, extensive life tests
have been conducted to determine compatible envelope/fluid pairs, some going on
for decades. In a heat pipe life test, heat pipes are operated for long periods of time,
and monitored for problems such as non-condensable gas generation, material
transport, and corrosion.
2.4.2 Different Types of Heat Pipes
In addition to standard, Constant Conductance Heat Pipes (CCHPs), there are a

number of other types of heat pipes, including:
• Vapor Chambers (planar heat pipes), which are used for heat flux transformation,
and isothermalization of surfaces.
• Variable Conductance Heat Pipes (VCHPs), which use a Non-Condensable Gas

(NCG) to change the heat pipe effective thermal conductivity as power or the
heat sink conditions change.
• Pressure Controlled Heat Pipes (PCHPs), which are a VCHP where the volume
of the reservoir, or the NCG mass can be changed, to give more precise tempera-
ture control.
• Diode Heat Pipes, which have a high thermal conductivity in the forward
direction, and a low thermal conductivity in the reverse direction.
• Thermosyphons, which are heat pipes where the liquid is returned to the evapo-
rator by gravitational/acceleration forces.
• Rotating heat pipes, where the liquid is returned to the evaporator by centrifugal
forces.
2.4.3 Nuclear Power Conversion
Grover and his colleagues were working on cooling systems for nuclear power cells
for space craft, where extreme thermal conditions are encountered. These alkali-
metal heat pipes transferred heat from the heat source to a thermionic or thermo-
electric converter to generate electricity.
Since the early 1990s, numerous nuclear reactor power systems have been pro-
posed using heat pipes for transporting heat between the reactor core and the power
conversion system. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity using heat pipes
was first operated on September 13, 2012, in a demonstration using flattop fission.
In Nuclear power plant application, heat pipes can be used as a passive heat
transfer system for performing as overall thermal hydraulic and natural circulation
sub-system in an Inherent Shutdown, Heat Removal System (ISHRS) in the core
(i.e., installed on top of the core doom) of nuclear reactor such as Molten Salt or
Liquid Metal Fast Breeder type reactors, as a secondary fully inherent shutdown
system loop acting like heat exchanger from safety point of view so the reactor
never reaches to its melting point in case of accidental events [2, 3].
2.4.4 Benefits of These Devices
• High Thermal Conductivity (10,000–100,000 W/m K)

• Isothermal
• Passive
• Low cost
• Shock/vibration tolerant
• Freeze/thaw tolerant
2.5 Miniaturization of New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants 61
2.4.5 Limitations
• Heat pipes must be tuned to particular cooling conditions. The choice of pipe
material, size, and coolant all have an effect on the optimal temperatures at which
heat pipes work.
• When used outside of its design heat range, the heat pipe’s thermal conductivity
is effectively reduced to the heat conduction properties of its solid metal casing
alone—in the case of a copper casing, around 1/80 of the original flux. This is
because below the intended temperature range the working fluid will not undergo
phase change; and above it, all of the working fluid in the heat pipe vaporizes and
the condensation process ceases.
• Most manufacturers cannot make a traditional heat pipe smaller than 3 mm in
diameter due to material limitations.
2.4.6 Conclusion
Overall, a heat pipe is a heat transfer device that combines the principles of both
thermal conductivity and phase transition to effectively transfer heat between two
solid interfaces. See illustration in Fig. 2.19.
Phase-change processes and the two-phase flow circulation in the HP will con-
tinue as long as there is a large enough temperature difference between the evapora-
tor and condenser sections. The fluid stops moving if the overall temperature is
uniform but starts back up again as soon as a temperature difference exists. No
power source (other than heat) is needed.
In some cases, when the heated section is below the cooled section, gravity is
used to return the liquid to the evaporator. However, a wick is required when the
evaporator is above the condenser on earth. A wick is also used for liquid return if
there is no gravity, such as in NASA’s micro-gravity applications [2, 3].
2.5 M
iniaturization of New Generation of Nuclear Power
Plants
After fall down of public opinions toward nuclear energy as source of generating
electricity, companies like Westinghouse (W), Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) faced
bankruptcy and reorganization and countries like Germany totally abandoned the idea
of generating electricity from nuclear power in particular after nuclear disaster in
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011) in Japan and divesting effect of it globally.
However, with an increase of population at the rate of almost 17% globally the
demand for electricity is gone up and with reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO) and
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and greenhouse effect, we need nuclear energy in terms of
Fig. 2.19 Tope view depiction of heat pipe
Fission Process in present and near time as well as Fusion Process in long term
when this technology gets more mature and will take off from research to produc-
tion line. With proposed new Generation IV (GEN-IV) and more advanced toward
safety and operation of these generations as well cost production effectiveness of
these types of advanced reactors in the form of modularization comes the miniatur-
ized version of these reactors into picture as well. Mobility and transportability of
these reactors are of interest to our demand for electricity, so these rectors become
more reasonable to own them and operate them, even in most remote area in the
world. See Fig. 2.20.
With technology of combined cycle from thermodynamics point of view, the
efficiency of these advanced reactors technologically are improved by producing a
better thermal efficiency output [5–8].
Looking at existing technology of Generation III (GEN-III) of these Fission
Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), these nuclear power plants are typically hulking struc-
tures made using billions of dollars of concrete and steel. But one company thinks
that by going smaller, they could actually make nuclear power more affordable.
As illustrated in Fig. 2.21, NuScale Power based in Portland, Oregano, one of the
industry pioneers in Small Modular Reactor (SMR), has submitted a design for
what it describes as a “modular” nuclear power plant based on Light Water Reactor
(LWR) technology. Each module is a self-contained 50-MW nuclear reactor loaded
Fig. 2.20 New generation of power plant are transportable
with standard uranium reactor fuel. Modules would be assembled at a factory-like

facility and then delivered to power utilities and other clients and their locations.
NuScale says the uranium fuel in each of its modules would be housed in a special
containment vessel that would be submerged in a pool of water, an added safety
feature.
Other companies such as Holtech, General Electric/Hitachi combined and
Westinghouse are suggesting very similar approach to such modularization and
miniaturization as well. As we stated, Westinghouse with their eVinci Nuclear
Micro Reactor is leading such effort.
“Miniature” in nuclear terms is still pretty big. The modules are small enough to
fit on flat-bed trucks, but they would stand nearly nine stories tall. Moreover, a
power plant would probably require several modules hooked together like giant bat-
teries. Of course, they would need to be operated by professional nuclear engineers.
Historically, it is the first time commercial nuclear power plant manufactures are
suggesting and submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to build a small modular type reactors.
The traditional concept of the nuclear power plant conjures images of massive
cooling towers, spent fuel pools, cavernous underground tunnels, and worst-case
scenarios. But it does not have to be that way. US nuclear power companies submit-
ted formal plans to build pre-assembled mini-reactors in the USA that are small
enough to be transported by boat or on the back of trucks as illustrated in Figs. 2.20
and 2.22.
https://www.seeker.com/a-nuclear-energy-company-wants-to-build-americas-first-
small-modular-r-2212178795.html
These generation of nuclear power plants design are a radical departure from the
tradition generation (i.e., GEN-III) would be safer and more cost-effective to build
and offers more advantages from Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
Fig. 2.21 The NuScale

uranium fuel module
concept
Few advantages that we can list here are:

• Proponents of these advanced small modular reactors say they will be easier to
build and more flexible in terms of where they can be located than the larger
kind. The word “modular” refers to how they will be built in factory-like settings,
ready for hauling either fully assembled or in easily connected parts by truck,
rail, or sea.
• These reactors can potentially power rural towns, industrial plants, mountainous
areas, and military bases, as well as urban districts and ports. Small modular
reactors may also prove handy for industrial uses.
• Small modular reactors will differ from the smaller reactors already deployed
because of their new technologies. These advances are intended to make it less
likely or even impossible for them to melt down or explode, as happened during
Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
• The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added
protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material. For example,
they may be equipped with cooling systems that continue working even if no
Fig. 2.22 Using barge/boat to transport small modular reactor
operators are present and all electric power is lost. In many cases, the entire
reactor and steam-generating equipment will be below ground to safeguard these
facilities during natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunamis that led three
Fukushima Daiichi reactors to melt down.
• Like renewable energy, nuclear power emits no carbon. And compared to wind
and solar power, which are intermittent sources, or hydropower, which is affected
by seasonal changes and droughts, it operates all the time and has a much smaller
footprint.
• As a result, small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a
substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants. Yet they will probably have to com-
pete with advanced energy storage systems for that market.
As we stated in above, each module uses less uranium fuel, making a large-scale
meltdown far less likely. The fuel would be housed in a special containment vessel
that would be submerged in a pool of water, an added safety feature. And rather than
using pumps of the sort that failed during the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the reac-
tor would circulate the water using natural convection. The company maintains the
design is simpler and safer than existing reactors.
NuScale formally completed its design submission to the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on Thursday. The 12,000-page application will now undergo a
lengthy review by the NRC, which must approve the design before construction
can begin.
Moving forward with the idea of SMRs and Micro Reactor is the cost-effectiveness
challenges of such miniaturized reactors. The cost-effectiveness of utilizing them on
a large scale. Although SMRs are cheaper initially due to a lower cost per unit, the
most obvious drawback is the increased running costs [9]. Since these reactors are
smaller and produce less energy per unit, due to economies of scale, power output
decreases while other costs stay constant [10]. This is probably the most substantial
reason for why SMRs have not yet emerged in a widespread context.
Other challenges include dealing with the waste products of SMRs; however, this
is the same for full-scale nuclear reactors as well. Additionally, people have men-
tioned the existence of SMRs could be dangerous for terrorist activity; however, I
do not foresee this being as significant of a problem as some people have predicted,
considering even SMR sites have security and are managed closely [11].
Although long-term costs remain a barrier to SMRs becoming a new standard in
the energy sector, this may change within the next few years. In terms of cost struc-
tures, the Andlinger Center review finds that “If the number of small plants con-
structed becomes large enough, if ‘learning’ is strong enough, and if the diseconomies
of small scale are weak enough, five 200-megawatt reactors could become cheaper
than one 1,000-megawatt plant” [10].
On-site assembly will be faster and cheaper as well, since it is much less complex
than building reactors from the ground up (and down). Once on site, the 76-ft tall
reactor is lowered into an underground containment vessel, itself submerged in
water within a vertical, steel-and-concrete reactor pool. The entire underground
structure is then capped with a shield cover, with the power plant facility constructed
on top. This kind of modular power plant development has many advantages,
according to proponent of these reactors as we stated them in above.
Whether these advantages materialize, obviously, remains to be seen once these
reactors are deployed. Some experts are skeptical of the industry’s promises and
expectations.
Although small modular reactors are designed to produce less radioactive waste
than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to
safely dispose of nuclear waste remains unresolved.
Small modular reactors face other challenges, some of their own making. Strong
interest in the potential global market has led many companies to propose their own
individual reactor designs. In my opinion, there are already too many versions out
there. Before long, a shakeout will occur.
It is also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost. That will
probably remain the case for at least the next 10–15 years, until a few designs are
actually built and operating.
Some experts foresee small modular reactors penciling out at levels that could be
higher than for full-sized reactors which generally cost more to build and operate
than other options, like natural gas, for the same amount of power. NuScale, how-
ever, predicts that its SMRs will be more competitive than that in terms of their cost.
These are encouraging speculation to suggest that SMRs do have a bright future
for progress in the energy sector. Moreover, there are two highly compelling poten-
tial applications for SMRs. The first situation that may be ideal for SMRs is “in
2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application 67
groups, where several small reactors are an alternative to one large one.” Secondly,
SMRs may be applicable when used “individually, in remote, isolated locations
where a large reactor is unsuitable and not considered feasible either” [10].
2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application
As we have learned in the first two chapters so far, SMRs are already being utilized
by multiple parties, including “on nuclear submarines and in some developing
countries such as India and Pakistan” [12]. Some major upsides of SMRs compared
to larger nuclear reactors is that they are more transportable, require less uranium
fuel (which could potentially lead to fewer meltdowns), and are more affordable at
initial market prices. One of the major advantages to SMR technology is the initial
economic benefit. While large nuclear reactor sites are extremely costly and difficult
to finance, SMRs are more feasible and thus open up the opportunity of harnessing
nuclear energy for more parties globally. To illustrate this matter, consider France
for a moment.
A French energy company, EDF, had plans to build new large reactor sites in
France and Finland. However, due to potential safety concerns, “the plans went bil-
lions of euros over budget” [12]. The problem lies in the fact that large nuclear reac-
tors take more time to build and check safety features. Thus, SMRs could help
overcome this barrier of financial and time pressures. Evidently, SMRs have already
begun to infiltrate our world in tangible ways. However, SMRs are not as wide-
spread as one might predict considering their many advantages. As governments
and private entities begin to adopt SMRs and harness the capability of SMRs to
produce “cleaner energy,” it is also important to consider the potential downsides
and dangers associated with SMRs.
With more than 70 advanced nuclear reactor projects in various stages of devel-
opment in the USA alone, there is exciting growth in this field. “Micro reactors” are
one class of these innovative technologies, whose particular attributes hold out spe-
cial promise to the nation’s largest energy user—the US military.
When it comes to the military application of these small modular reactors, the
US military is in quest of ting road mobile nuclear reactors that can fit in a cargo
airplane such as C-17 or C-5 Galaxy or get on a truck such as the one illustrated in
Fig. 2.23.
The power demands to sustain American military operations are only increasing,
but small nuclear power plants could present new problems. The US military’s
secretive Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) is asking for potential vendors to sub-
mit proposals for small mobile nuclear reactors to help meet ever-growing demands
for power during operations in remote and austere locations. This request for infor-
mation comes as the US Army, in particular, is looking to extend the amount of time
its units can operate independent of established supply chains, but portable nuclear
power could introduce new risks to the battlefield.
Fig. 2.23 Transporting Nuclear Micro Reactor via Military Truck
Concerns are growing throughout the US military about the potential difficulties
in rapidly deploying large amounts of personnel and equipment into a theater of
operations under fire during a major conflict and whether there will be any bases of
operation to support them once they get there. Now, the US Army says it is looking
for ways to ensure that individual brigade combat teams will have supplies, espe-
cially fuel and water, to be able to keep fighting for up to a week without a guaran-
teed supply chain.
As the US military’s primary focus shifts to potential high-end conflicts with
adversaries such as Russia and China, senior US Air Force (USAF) leaders are warn-
ing that the service must be prepared to deploy to a region and quickly set up new
bases. Otherwise, the service risks seeing its operations hampered, if not brought to
a halt entirely for at least some amount of time, if an enemy has destroyed or other-
wise renders established facilities unusable in the opening stages of a major war.
SCO first announced that they were looking for “information on innovative tech-
nologies and approaches” relating to a possible future “small mobile nuclear reactor
prototype design” on FedBizOpps, the US government’s main contracting website,
on January 18, 2019. The organization posted an amended version of the notice,
which outlines a “multi-phase prototype project” as part of what it is calling Project
Dilithium, 4 days later.
“Energy usage during contingency operations will likely increase significantly
over the next few decades,” the latest version of the request for information explains.
“The modern operational space has amplified the need for alternative energy sources
to enable mobility in forward land based and maritime military operations.” As its
concept is artistically drawn as depicted in Fig. 2.24.
Note that FOB, “Free-on-Board,” is a term in international commercial law specify-
ing at what point respective obligations, costs, and risk involved in the delivery of goods.
Moreover, a diagram from a previous US military report depicting a potential
concept of operations for deploying a mobile nuclear reactor.
SCO basic requirements envision a reactor that can generate between 1 and
10 MW of energy, less than the average output for even a small research reactor and
weigh less than 40 tons. The final design would need to be portable by semi-trailer
truck, ship, or a US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III cargo plane. See Fig. 2.25.
Fig. 2.24 Concept of operations, transport to theater and Free-on-Board (FOB)
The reactors would produce 1–10 MWe of electrical power, weight less than 40
tons, be capable of being set up and running after delivery by a C-17 in less than
72 h; and, run more or less unattended for up to 3 years.
If the Army is successful in developing and deploying these mini reactors, the
supply chain created by producing them could be capitalized by current and future
developments of small modular reactors.
Additionally, assuming the US Army produces enough of them, that cost and
schedule data from the line might finally answer the question of how many orders a
commercial SMR developer needs to start up its own production line. Note the
Army is unlikely to want to share a production capability needed to assure tactical
readiness at forward bases.
The testing and safety review processes for the military reactors would also pro-
vide test cases for use by commercial reactors and also inform the NRC about get-
ting smart on these types of reactors. According to the Army Times report test efforts
are expected to take place at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and an interest
has been announced by INL as well.
Note that: The specifications for the acquisition of these mini-reactors, some-
times referred to incorrectly as “nuclear batteries,” was published in the Federal
Business Opportunities aka FedBizOps on 22 January 2019. The announcement
came with a detailed list of operational and physical requirements. This announce-
ment is a “Request for Information (RFI).” A full blown Request for Proposals
(RFP) could be issued later this year.
Note to Readers—4 March 2019—the correct designation of the issuing office
of the RFI is the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Strategic Capabilities Office aka
OSD/SCO as an acronym. References to the US Army actually refer to this part of
the Pentagon.
Fig. 2.25 Cargo Plane C-17 photo
Furthermore, the RFI says that the Defense Department could pick three
p rototypes for its phase I portion of development. That would require prototype
designs and other plans. That phase would go for 9–12 months, according to the
post. The Idaho National Laboratory is cited as offering an estimate that testing and
demonstrations could begin as early as 2021.
There are a number of potential concepts already in various stages of develop-
ment that could meet SCO’s requirements. The US Department of Energy’s own
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), in cooperation with the Westinghouse
power company, has been working on one design called MegaPower (i.e., Fig. 2.26)
for some time now. Westinghouse is separately working on its own eVinci micro
reactor design.
In September 2018, officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory released details
of work taking place there to build a very small reactor to meet the military’s needs.
In the LANL micro reactor, the nuclear fuel is HALEU. The fuel is encapsulated
in a solid-steel monolith to form a sub-critical nuclear core, which is surrounded by
a neutron reflector and contains a simple shutdown rod that allows the core to go
critical on demand.
The thermal energy created by the fission reactions is efficiently removed from
the metal core by high temperature, alkali-metal heat pipes, a technology in wide
use both on earth and in space since the 1970s. Thermal energy is converted into
electrical energy—and power is delivered.
As part of MegaPower reactor design, this new micro reactor sprang from Los
Alamos’ work to develop a small nuclear reactor for NASA that might someday
power a colony on Mars or the Moon. Called Kilopower, the Mars reactor is about
Fig. 2.26 Los Alamos National Laboratory MegaPower Reactor Systems Design. (Source:
LANAL Courtesy)
the size of a roll-aboard suitcase and provides 1–10 kW of electric power. A key
feature is self-regulation: the Kilopower reactor relies on inherent physics phenom-
ena to naturally regulate its power output to meet power needs. Passive heat pipes
drive multiple engines to generate electricity. Testing at the National Criticality
Experiments Research Center at the Nevada National Security Site demonstrated a
smaller version of the entire system.
The Kilopower project is a near-term technology effort to develop preliminary
concepts and technologies that could be used for an affordable fission nuclear power
system to enable long-duration stays on planetary surfaces (see Fig. 2.27).
After successful completion of the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology
(KRUSTY) experiment in March 2018, the Kilopower project team is developing
mission concepts and performing additional risk reduction activities to prepare for
a possible future flight demonstration. Such a demonstration could pave the way for
future Kilopower systems that power human outposts on the Moon and Mars,
enabling mission operations in harsh environments and missions that rely on In situ
Resource Utilization to produce local propellants and other materials.
The Kilopower project is part of NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate’s
Game Changing Development (GCD) program, which is managed by NASA’s
Langley Research Center. The Flight Opportunities program funded the parabolic
and suborbital flights that matured the Kilopower technology’s titanium water heat
pipes by exposing it to space-relevant environments through the use of commercial
reusable suborbital launch vehicles. The project will remain a part of the GCD
program with the goal of transitioning to the Technology Demonstration Mission
program in Fiscal Year 2020.
The Kilopower project team is led by NASA’s Glenn Research Center in partner-
ship with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NASA); and NNSA’s Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Y-12 National Security Complex, and Nevada National Security Site
(NNSS). Testing occurred from November 2017 to March 2018 at the National
Criticality Experiments Research Center in the Device Assembly Facility at the NNSS.
Keep in mind that, “There is not much the” US military does that is more dan-
gerous than trucking fuel through a war zone. In 2009, the Army found that one
soldier died for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan. So, if a better way could be
found to generate electricity at remote bases—that is what most of the fuel is used
for—it could greatly reduce the risks to our military (Fig. 2.28).
A solution could be a new micro-nuclear reactor being developed by Los Alamos
National Laboratory and the Westinghouse power company. Built around heat pipe
technology [2, 3], this inherently safe micro reactor has no cooling water or pumps
that can fail, uses passive regulation systems so that it cannot melt down, and can
generate at least 1 MW of safe, reliable power for 10 years or more. A megawatt is
enough electricity for roughly a military brigade, some 1500–4000 soldiers.
Pay attention to the fact that the Pentagon has been interested in small nuclear
reactors for nearly a decade, as robust and reliable power sources for military instal-
lations within the territorial United States and overseas. The very small “micro
reactor” designs now emerging from companies like General Atomics, NuScale
Power LLC, Oklo Inc., Westinghouse Electric Co., and X-energy LLC are particu-
larly well aligned with DOD’s needs for energy security and resilience.
Fig. 2.27 Conceptual reactor image on planetary surface

Micro reactors are a source of resilient energy that can enable a wide range of
installations to enhance their range, endurance, agility, and mission assurance.
Micro reactors are being designed with island-mode operations, black-start capa-
bilities, an ability to protect against severe natural phenomena as well as man-made
physical and cybersecurity threats, and to operate for several years without the need
to shut down for refueling.
Such strong interest for Small Modular Reactors and Nuclear Micro Reactors
can even power remote communities, both Military and Civilian (i.e., Fig. 2.29) and
working closely with the reactor industry and vendors and with relevant offices at
the US Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE), the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in release of its published report showed a Road
Map laying out the actions needed and to take and to ensure the successful deploy-
ment of these new generations of a First-of-a-Kind micro reactors at a domestic
defense installation such as INL by the end of 2017.
NEI’s technical report, “Road Map for the Deployment of Micro Reactors for
U.S. Department of Defense Domestic Installations,” [13] provides guidance and
input for the pilot program. The road map outlines the timelines and challenges for
deploying the first micro reactor at a domestic DOD facility and recommends
actions to ensure its installment by December 31, 2027, as prescribed in the NDAA.
Among NEI’s recommended actions for DOD, DOE, and industry are:
• DOD should identify the host installation and site requirements, perform an
assessment of the designs, and enter into a contract or agreement with a com-
mercial entity by the end of 2019.
• DOE should provide high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) by the end of
2022. This is uranium enriched in fissile uranium-235 to a slightly higher level
than that used by current commercial nuclear reactors and is needed for some
micro reactor designs.
• Developers should sustain the development of micro reactor designs to enable
deployment within the program timeline, including designing for manufactur-
ability, constructability, and operability, and optionally entering into private–
public partnerships with DOE.
Fig. 2.28 Trucking nuclear reactor energy through a war zone

Fig. 2.29 Conceptual remote civilian community
• DOD should work closely with the industry and the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to identify and resolve unique regulatory issues associated with
micro reactors.
• Industry should immediately begin working with the NRC to explore options for
accelerating the review schedule for micro reactors.
While the road map focuses on domestic defense installations, micro reactors are
equally suitable for forward operating bases overseas. For these applications, the
Pentagon also is interested in micro reactors for their potential to eliminate the need
for fuel resupply.
The SCO’s requirements demand a design that is incapable of melting down,
does not require constant monitoring for otherwise safe operation, and does not
present an immediate health hazard. LANL and Filippone and Associates LLC both
claim that their designs meet these requirements through inherent safety features in
their respective designs.
But even if the reactor itself cannot catastrophically fail, something that may be
a tall order to ensure in austere conditions regardless of the design, powering remote
and austere bases with nuclear power could run other risks. If hostile forces end up
destroying the reactor, it could potentially lead to the hazardous dispersal of radio-
active material. See Fig. 2.30.
The Department of Defense wants a portable nuclear reactor the size of a main
battle tank that is capable of being lifted to overseas hot spots. The reactor would
provide megawatts of power for US forces, providing juice for everything from
Xboxes to directed energy weapons. A mobile reactor would also make the military
less reliant on diesel fuel for electrical generators, which in some cases must be sent
along dangerous resupply lines.
According to the Federal Business Opportunities website, the Department of

Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office has officially put out a request for informa-
tion for a “Small Mobile Nuclear Reactor.” Based at the Pentagon, the Strategic
Capabilities Office (SCO) spearheads the development of cutting edge military
technology.
Unlike the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is more con-
cerned with developing technologies, the SCO is more focused on deliverable
weapons systems and other technologies, even such as the Small Mobile Nuclear
Reactor (SMNR) that is described above.
Bottom line is that, the US Army or military wants its Brigades to be able to fight
anytime anywhere around the globe to defend interest of the USA for at least entire
week without resupply and have source of generating electricity free of any chemi-
cal fuel, such as diesel or gasoline and that is these new generations of first kind
micro reactors are looking very appealing.
The service is worried that units have grown dangerously reliant on logistics
chains that might not exist during a major conflict.
2.6.1 Department of Defense Requirements
Resilience is a primary requirement for DoD. Resilience is defined in the 2018

NDAA as “the ability to avoid, prepare for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from
anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions in order to ensure energy availabil-
ity and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance and readiness, includ-
ing task critical assets and other mission essential operations related to readiness,
Fig. 2.30 Military personnel conducting radiological reconnaissance mission in remote areas
and to execute or rapidly reestablish mission essential requirements.” The 2018

NDAA also defines energy security as “having assured access to reliable supplies of
energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet mission essen-
tial requirements.” Energy resilience must be achieved in a manner that does not
negatively impact the mission. Generation sources that minimize usage of land, air,
and water resources, including site access for fuel receipt and storage, will enhance
the installation’s ability to focus on mission-critical activities.
Currently, DoD installations rely almost entirely on the grid, which is highly
vulnerable to prolonged outage from a variety of threats, placing critical missions at
unacceptably high risk of extended disruption. Backup power is often based on
diesel generator sets with limited on-site fuel storage, undersized for new Homeland
defense missions, not prioritized to critical loads and inadequate in duration and
reliability. This is according to a Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy
Strategy that also found “critical national security and Homeland defense missions
are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the grid” [14].
DoD Instruction 4170.11, Installation Energy Management, provides policy
direction to ensure energy resilience at military installations. Each military branch
appears to address energy resilience differently, for example, the Army contextual-
izes resilience in terms of energy security, while the Air Force contextualizes resil-
ience in terms of energy assurance. Efforts to enhance resilience also appear to
focus along the lines in which resilience has been contextualized [15].
While the detailed scenario and capability requirements necessary to provide
resilience at DoD installations are not known and may be unique to each facility,
there are a number of considerations that appear to be universally important. These
include minimization of outages due to maintenance and failures, being robust
against natural and man-made threats, the ability to quickly restore critical opera-
tions, and having secure access to the source, delivery and on-site storage of fuel.
More detailed requirements for resilience for Air Force Installations are contained
in a 2017 RAND report that is published [16].
Micro reactors offer the ability to assure energy resilience at DoD installations.
Micro reactors can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and are
being designed to operate for several years without the need to shut down for refuel-
ing. Micro reactors are being designed to protect against severe natural phenomena
as well as man-made physical and cyber security threats, and many are being
designed with the ability to operate in island-mode and include black-start capabili-
ties. Micro reactors are also being designed to be able to adjust output to meet
changes in demand.
Micro reactors will be able to provide heat and other products, such as desali-
nated water and hydrogen that can meet the needs of DoD installations. Micro
reactors can also enhance DoD’s use of new technologies, such as advanced com-
puting, “big data” analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed
energy, hypersonic, and biotechnology. The very technologies that ensure the USA
will be able to fight and win the wars of the future [17].
2.7 Nuclear Micro Reactor Influencing Future Space Explorations 77
Other requirements such as cost, environmental impacts, power characteristics,

and site parameters, including land area, water sources, seismicity, precipitation,
and wind speed, are not known and are likely to be site specific.
2.7 N
uclear Micro Reactor Influencing Future Space
Explorations
Historically, since our time of moon walking with National Nuclear Security
Administration (NASA) behind it and trying to explore space by going beyond
moon, we had a lot of interest to integrate source of nuclear energy as part of popu-
lation system so we can travel faster and further in space.
You may not associate space travel with the Energy Department. But you
should—because nuclear power systems developed here have made dozens of truly
amazing interplanetary research missions possible with Department of Energy
(DOE) being involved since its their charter of the work around nuclear power energy.
The Energy Department’s Office of Space and Defense Power Systems and its
predecessors, in tandem with the National Labs and private industry partners, have
developed and provided radioisotope power systems to NASA for use in numerous
long-term missions, from Voyagers 1 and 2 to the Mars rovers (i.e., Fig. 2.31).
These compact, reliable systems provide basic mission fuel and keep critical
spacecraft components warm enough to function in the cold, dark reaches of deep
space and allows us to go about crossing into uncharted territory is that you may not
know when, exactly, you have crossed into it. No one needs to tell that to the Voyager
1 spacecraft, which is currently at the center of a controversy about where the solar
system ends and interstellar space begins, see Fig. 2.32.
Although relatively simple, these systems have powered some of the most suc-
cessful and inspiring missions in US space program history. Explore our interactive
timeline of these missions, above, and read on to learn more about the “space bat-
teries” that made them a reality.
On around March of 2011, the Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity,
launched from Cape Canaveral with the most advanced payload of scientific gear
ever used on the red planet.
Its mission: to investigate whether the Gale Crater on Mars has ever offered envi-
ronmental conditions that support the development of microbial life.
We should be proud to say that this mission is made possible by nuclear space power
systems developed by the Energy Department. This year marks the 50th anniversary of
nuclear-powered space exploration. Exploration such as the mission to Mars certainly
shows a need for nuclear energy as population system on-board so it provided us more
reliable and longer life cycle for fuel to go further and deeper in space.
On Curiosity, the Department’s Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric
Generator (MMRTG) will provide continuous power to the rover and effective oper-
ating temperatures for its 11 scientific instruments. This is particularly important on
Fig. 2.31 Image of Voyager 1 probe in space. (Source: NASA)
Fig. 2.32 Deep space exploration. (Source: NASA)
Mars where reliable power is critical to maintain operation of the rover in the plan-
et’s dusty environment and during the cold Martian nights and frigid winter.
The MMRTG, which was constructed, assembled, and tested by the Energy
Department and the Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Sandia National
Laboratories, uses heat produced by the natural decay of plutonium-238 to generate
110 W of electricity. See Fig. 2.33.
Fig. 2.33 MMRTG package. (Source: NASA)
The Curiosity missions investigate whether the Gale Crater on Mars has ever
offered environmental conditions that support the development of microbial life.
These power systems have been used for space missions since 1961, including
on the Apollo and Viking missions; the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft; and the
Voyager probes.
When we are looking at augmentation and integration of nuclear reactor power
as part of space explorer such as Voyager 1 and 2, then the size is the matter during
lift and launch of such system into the space and mission that we are curious to
explore. Nuclear Micro Reactor (NMR) is one way to go, and there exists a lot of
interest around such technology by NASA scientist and nuclear engineers develop-
ing it in order to make space worthy.
2.7.1 Power From Plutonium
Despite what you see in movies and TV shows, there are only two practical ways to
supply electrical power for multi-year space missions: the sun’s rays or heat gener-
ated by natural radioactive decay. Radioisotope power systems—which directly
convert heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238 into electric power—use the
latter and are essential for long missions to distant parts of the solar system, where
solar-powered space travel may be impractical or impossible.
Plutonium-238 (Pu-238) works well as a space power source for several reasons.
It has a half-life of 88 years, meaning it takes that long for its heat output to be
reduced by half. It is stable at high temperatures; can generate substantial heat in
small amounts; and emits relatively low levels of radiation that is easily shielded, so
mission-critical instruments and equipment are not affected. This type of plutonium
is different than those used for nuclear weapons or nuclear power plant reactors.
In a Radioisotope Power System (RPS), commonly called a “space battery,” the

plutonium is processed into a ceramic form—similar to the material in your morn-
ing coffee mug. Just like a shattered mug, it breaks into large chunks instead of
being vaporized and dispersed, preventing harm to people and the environment in
the unlikely event of a launch or reentry accident. For more than 50 years, every
radioisotope power system launched into space has worked safely and exactly as
designed.
Technology involved in power from plutonium-238 as depicted in Fig. 2.34 is an
overall image of this fuel element, which provides a General Purpose Heat Source
(GHPS) as a module. The GPHS module provides steady heat for a radioisotope
power system. See Fig. 2.35.
Radioisotope power systems, or RPS, provide electricity and heat that can enable
spacecraft to undertake scientific missions to environments beyond the capabilities
of solar power, chemical batteries, and fuel cells.
RPS are sometimes referred to as a type of “nuclear battery.” While some space-
craft, like Cassini, do run their systems directly off of their RPS, others like the
Mars Science Laboratory rover can use the RPS to charge batteries and run their
systems and instruments off of stored battery power. In either case, the RPS is
attached directly to a spacecraft, much like a power cord being plugged in.
These technologies are capable of producing electricity and heat for decades
under the harsh conditions of deep space without refueling. All of these power sys-
tems, flown on more than two dozen NASA missions since the 1960s, have func-
tioned for longer than they were originally designed.
The RPS used to power NASA spacecraft are supplied by the US Department of
Energy (DOE). NASA and DOE continue to collaborate on maintaining and devel-
oping several types of RPS.
The General Purpose Heat Source module, or GPHS, is the essential building
block for the radioisotope generators used by NASA. These modules contain and pro-
tect the plutonium-238 (or Pu-238) fuel that gives off heat for producing electricity.
Fig. 2.34 A Pu-238 fuel

pellet protected via indium
classing. (Source: NASA)
The fuel is fabricated into ceramic pellets of plutonium-238 dioxide (238PuO2) and
encapsulated in a protective casing of iridium, forming a fueled clad. Fueled clads are
encased within nested layers of carbon-based material and placed within an aeroshell
housing to comprise the complete GPHS module.
Each GPHS is a block about 4 × 4 × 2 in. in size, weighing approximately 3.5
pounds (1.5 kg). They are nominally designed to produce thermal power at 250 W
at the beginning of a mission and can be used individually or stacked together.
Modules have been subjected to extreme testing conditions that significantly
exceeded the intensity of a wide range of potential accidents. Such tests have
included simulating multiple reentries for a single module through Earth’s
atmosphere, exposure to high temperature rocket propellant fires, and impacts onto
solid ground.
The enhanced GPHS modules used in the latest generation of radioisotope power
systems incorporate additional rugged, safety-tested features that build upon those
used in earlier generations. For example, additional material (20% greater in thick-
ness) has been added to the graphite aeroshell and to the two largest faces of the
block-like module. These modifications provide even more protection to help to
contain the fuel in a wide range of accident conditions, further reducing the poten-
tial for release of plutonium-238 that might result.
2.7.2 R
adioisotope Power Systems Type in Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator
A Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) provides power for spacecraft by

converting heat generated by the natural radioactive decay of its fuel source, pluto-
nium dioxide, into electricity using devices called thermocouples. RTGs have no
moving parts. The latest RPS to be qualified for flight, the Multi-Mission
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) is powering the Mars Science
Fig. 2.35 General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) module expanded view. (Source: NASA)
Laboratory rover, Curiosity, which landed on Mars in August 2012. The MMRTG
continues to perform as designed, providing both power and heat for the rover.
As we stated before, the MMRTG is designed to be used in the vacuum of space
as well as within the atmosphere of Mars. See Fig. 2.36.
Thermocouples are common in everyday items that must monitor or regulate
their temperature, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and medical thermometers.
The principle of a thermocouple involves two plates, each made of a different metal
that conducts electricity. Joining these two plates to form a closed electrical circuit
while keeping the two junctions at different temperatures produces an electric cur-
rent. Each of these pairs of junctions forms an individual thermocouple. In an RTG,
the radioisotope fuel heats one of these junctions while the other junction remains
unheated and is cooled by the space environment or a planetary atmosphere.
2.7.3 Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHU)
A Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHU) employs a small, pencil eraser-sized pellet of

plutonium dioxide to generate heat for spacecraft structures, systems, and instru-
ments, enabling their successful operation throughout a mission. Some missions
employ just a few RHUs for extra heat, while others have dozens. NASA has also
studied the potential for using the same small fuel pellet in an RHU to power a
compact system that could provide a few dozen milliwatts of electrical power.
2.8 Additional Nuclear Technologies for Space Exploration
In 1961, the US Navy’s Transit 4A navigation satellite became the first US space-
craft to be powered by nuclear energy. Transit 4A was powered by a Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator (RTG), developed by the Atomic Energy Commission,
the predecessor to the Energy Department. Since then, eight more generations of
radioisotope power systems were developed by the Energy Department for use in
space by NASA, the US Navy, and the US Air Force.
With no moving parts, RTGs convert heat from plutonium-238 decay into elec-
tricity using devices called thermocouples. The RTG on the Navy’s Transit 4A satel-
lite produced 2.7 W of electrical power. Transit 4A held the record for oldest
broadcasting spacecraft for its first decade in orbit, during which time it traveled
nearly 2 billion miles and circled the Earth more than 55,000 times.
In 1969, NASA launched the RTG-powered Nimbus III (i.e., Fig. 2.37), the first
US weather satellite to measure air pressure, solar ultraviolet radiation, the ozone
layer, and sea ice during both day and night.
Nimbus also included on-board infrared sensors that took early satellite photo-
graphs of the Earth. Aside from its RTGs, Nimbus also drew power from 10,500
built-in solar cells.
2.8 Additional Nuclear Technologies for Space Exploration 83
Fig. 2.36 Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG). (Source: NASA)
The space batteries on the moon also was part of NASA Research & Development
(R&D) effort by NASA.
The Apollo missions to the moon included experimental packages for Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP)—containing scientific instruments
that were left on the moon by US astronauts to send data back to Earth. The first
package was solar-powered but relied on two 15-W Radioisotope Heater Units
(RHUs) to keep its instruments warm enough to function.
The subsequent packages were each powered by 70-W SNAP-27 Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). The ALSEPs contributed to a significant
amount of what we now know about the moon—including data on solar wind and
radiation, and the observation that the moon is geologically active. The five ALSEP
stations were shut down in 1977.
RTGs have also powered missions to explore other planets. In 1989, Galileo
became the first spacecraft to orbit Jupiter. Galileo showed evidence of an ocean of
liquid water on Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons, and volcanoes on Io, another moon;
and took the first close-up pictures of an asteroid and the first photos of a comet
Fig. 2.37 Nimbus III image. (Source: NASA)
colliding with a planet, when Shoemaker-Levy 9 struck Jupiter. The Galileo orbiter
was powered by two RTGs and included 120 RHUs to ensure its scientific instru-
ments functioned properly.
The Ulysses mission to study the heliosphere—the part of space that is affected
by the Sun’s magnetic field—launched in 1990, powered by a General Purpose Heat
Source Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (GPHS-RTG). It operated for about
two decades before being powered down, during which time the Ulysses spacecraft
flew past Jupiter and made three full polar orbits of the sun. Ulysses gathered previ-
ously unknown data about solar storms, solar wind, interstellar dust particles, and
cosmic radiation. It also discovered 30 times more dust coming into the solar system
from deep space than scientists had originally expected.
Cassini, an ongoing international mission to explore Saturn and its moons, is
powered by three RTGs and kept warm by 117 small, strategically placed RHUs—82
on the Cassini orbiter and 35 on the Huygens probe, which Cassini carried to and
released over Saturn’s moon Titan. On January 14, 2005, Huygens successfully
landed on Titan’s surface, the first-ever landing of a craft from Earth in the outer
solar system. Cassini is also responsible for the first comprehensive study of the
Saturn system from orbit—including discoveries of active, icy geysers on Enceladus,
another moon. Data collected from the Cassini mission is helping scientists under-
stand more about what the Earth may have been like before life evolved.
2.9 Reaching For Interstellar Space 85
Launched in 2006, the New Horizons spacecraft was designed to study Pluto and
to explore other little-known, ice-cold places in the Kuiper Belt. New Horizons
passed Jupiter and captured photos of that planet’s rings and lightning at its poles
before completing its flyby of Pluto in July 2015, returning the highest resolution
images ever captured of the dwarf planet and its moons. It later reached Kuiper Belt
object Ultima Thule on January 1, 2019, completing the farthest planetary flyby
ever in exploration history at more than 4 billion miles away from us, here on Earth.
The spacecraft is powered by a GPHS-RTG, similar to the one used on Ulysses.
NASA and DOE have explored other types of nuclear power technology over the
years, including space nuclear reactors and nuclear propulsion technologies.
Continued research and development of these and other related technologies might
one day enable space missions to deliver more payloads on cargo missions, achieve
faster trip times on piloted missions, or even provide power for crew stations on the
surface of Mars or the moon.
2.9 Reaching For Interstellar Space
Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, launched in the early 1970s (i.e., Fig. 2.38), were precur-
sors to the Voyager missions that followed. The spacecraft were designed to travel
far—each powered by four RTGs and kept warm by 12 RHUs—and to withstand
intense radiation from planets further out in the solar system.
Pioneer 10’s power systems were designed to last at least 5 years but operated for
more than three decades before communications ceased. During that time, it was the
first spacecraft to fly past Mars, visit (and photograph) Jupiter, cross the asteroid
belt and transmit data about interplanetary particles.
Pioneer 11 took the first up-close pictures of Saturn, discovered two new moons
and an additional ring around the planet, and found that Saturn emits more than
twice as much heat as it receives from the Sun. The mission lasted 22 years before
communications ceased; now, Pioneer 10 and 11 are headed toward the edge of the
solar system, bearing plaques with a message for intelligent beings they may
encounter.
Voyager 1 and 2 built on Pioneer’s legacy in the late 1970s. Taken together, these
two missions have yielded some of the most important discoveries in US space
exploration history. Each spacecraft uses nine RHUs to stay warm and draws power
from three multi-hundred watt radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or MHW-
RTGs—a type of power system specific to these two missions. The power systems
are still operating today, more than 35 years after they were deployed. As the
Voyager spacecraft slowly lose power, mission controllers back on Earth may turn
off instruments one by one to conserve energy as long as possible.
Voyager 1 flew by Jupiter and Saturn and recently entered interstellar space. Along
the way, it photographed the Earth—appearing as a pale blue dot—from 4 billion
miles away. Voyager 2 is the only spacecraft to study all four of the giant planets—
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—at close range. It discovered previously
Fig. 2.38 An artist’s impression of a Pioneer spacecraft. (Source: NASA)
unknown moons around Neptune and Uranus, as well as liquid nitrogen geysers on
Triton, one of Neptune’s moons, and transmitted back hundreds of never-before-seen
images. See Fig. 2.39.
Voyager 2 image of Fig. 2.39 shows the Triton from the south polar region with
dark streaks produced by geysers visible on the icy surface.
Astronomers using the Gemini Observatory explore Neptune’s largest moon
Triton and observe, for the first time beyond the lab, an extraordinary union between
carbon monoxide and nitrogen ices. The discovery offers insights into how this
volatile mixture can transport material across the moon’s surface via geysers, trig-
ger seasonal atmospheric changes, and provide a context for conditions on other
distant, icy worlds.
2.10 Mission to Mars
Viking 1 and 2, launched separately in 1975, were NASA’s first effort to harvest data
directly from the surface of the red planet. Each mission had two parts: an orbiter
and a lander. Both Viking missions sent back photographs of the surface of the red
2.10 Mission to Mars 87
Fig. 2.39 Neptune’s Moon Triton Fosters Rare Icy Union (Voyager 2 image). (Source: NASA/JPL)
planet and helped scientists back on Earth learn more about elements present there
(carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus—all essential to life on our
own home planet). The two 42.6-W RTGs on Viking 1 and 2 were designed to last
at least 90 days but lasted for 6 and 4 years, respectively.
Interestingly, Viking 1 was not the first spacecraft to land on Mars—although it
was the first successful one. A failed Soviet mission touched down on the Martian
surface in 1971 but only survived for seconds before losing communication.
Between Viking 1 and 2, more than 55,000 images of Mars were transmitted back
to Earth—including the first space “selfie” on Mars, taken by Viking 2 itself. The
image is one of the most famous pictures in the history of the US space program.
See Fig. 2.40.
NASA took Mars exploration one step further in 1996, launching the microwave
oven-sized Mars Pathfinder rover. Designed to last 7 days, the mission endured 12
times longer—demonstrating a cost-effective way to send a scientific mission to the
red planet. Pathfinder used solar panels for electric power and relied on three RHUs
to keep its scientific instruments warm.
In 2003, NASA separately launched twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity,
designed to search Mars for evidence of water, climate changes, and other clues
that the planet may have once supported life. Both rovers used solar panels for
power and RHUs to support on-board scientific instruments. Spirit explored the
red planet for 6 years—finding strong evidence that at one time Mars was much
wetter than it is now—before it got stuck in sand and went no further. Opportunity
has lived on, studying rock layers and returning stunning photographs of the
Martian landscape.
The most recent nuclear-powered space mission to launch was 2011s Curiosity,
which tweets from space. For both heat and power, Curiosity relies on a single
multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator that was constructed, assem-
bled, and tested by the Energy Department and the Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos,
and Sandia National Laboratories. This SUV-sized rover contains numerous scien-
tific instruments and was sent to Mars to study rock layers and climate, determine if
favorable conditions for life ever existed there, and to pave the way for future human
exploration. Curiosity is far more powerful than its red planet predecessors and is
expected to last for at least 2 years—presumably drilling and analyzing rock sam-
ples across an unprecedented range.
NASA plans to send a similar rover back to Mars in 2020. The rover is based on
Curiosity’s design, but this time will carry a drill for coring samples from Martian
rocks and soil. The mission is expected to launch in July 2020 and land on Mars in
February 2021. The RTG is currently being constructed, assembled, and tested by
Idaho, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories.
Fig. 2.40 Artist’s impression of the Viking Orbiter Spacecraft. (Source: NASA)
2.11 NASA Kilopower Reactor-Driven Future Space Exploration 89
2.11 N
ASA Kilopower Reactor-Driven Future Space
Exploration
The Kilopower project is a near-term technology effort to develop preliminary

concepts and technologies that could be used for an affordable fission nuclear power
system to enable long-duration stays on planetary surfaces. After successful com-
pletion of the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) experi-
ment in March 2018, the Kilopower project team is developing mission concepts
and performing additional risk reduction activities to prepare for a possible future
flight demonstration. Such a demonstration could pave the way for future Kilopower
systems that power human outposts on the Moon and Mars, enabling mission opera-
tions in harsh environments and missions that rely on In situ Resource Utilization to
produce local propellants and other materials.
The Kilopower project is part of NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate’s
Game Changing Development (GCD) program, which is managed by NASA’s
Langley Research Center. The Flight Opportunities program funded the parabolic
and suborbital flights that matured the Kilopower technology’s titanium water heat
pipes by exposing it to space-relevant environments through the use of commercial
reusable suborbital launch vehicles. The project will remain a part of the GCD pro-
gram with the goal of transitioning to the Technology Demonstration Mission pro-
gram in Fiscal Year 2020.
The Kilopower project team is led by NASA’s Glenn Research Center in partner-
ship with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; the Department of Energy’s (DOE)
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); and NNSA’s Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Y-12 National Security Complex, and Nevada National
Security Site (NNSS). Testing occurred from November 2017 to March 2018 at the
National Criticality Experiments Research Center in the Device Assembly Facility
at the NNSS.
Overall future of NASA space exploration depicted in Fig. 2.41.
Picture of NASA Kilopower reactor 1–3 kWe Multi-Mission is depicted in
Fig. 2.42.
As it can be seen from Fig. 2.42, the NASA Kilopower reactor is using Advanced
Sodium Hear Pipe Technology for reactor coolant [2, 3].
Throughout 2015, several material tests were initiated to understand certain
properties that were either unavailable or were considered to be inconclusive based
on past research data. Some of these tests included creep properties of the fuel, coef-
ficient of thermal expansion of the fuel, and diffusion properties between the fuel
and sodium heat pipes.
The development of NASA’s Kilopower fission reactor is taking large strides
toward flight development with several successful tests completed during its tech-
nology demonstration trials. The Kilopower reactors are designed to provide
1–10 kW of electrical power to a spacecraft or lander, which could be used for
additional science instruments, the ability to power electric propulsion systems, or
support human exploration on another planet. Power-rich nuclear missions have
been excluded from NASA mission proposals because of the lack of radioisotope
fuel and the absence of a flight qualified fission system. NASA has partnered with
the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration to develop
the Kilopower reactor using existing facilities and infrastructure and determine if
the reactor design is suitable for flight development. The 3-year Kilopower project
started in 2015 with a challenging goal of building and testing a full-scale flight-
prototypic nuclear reactor by the end of 2017.
Initially, the power system will undergo several non-nuclear tests using an electri-
cal heat source and a depleted uranium core to verify the complete non-nuclear system
design prior to any nuclear testing. After successful completion of the depleted ura-
nium test, the system will be shipped to the Nevada National Security Site where it
will be fueled with the highly enriched uranium core and retested using the nuclear
heat source. At completion of the project, NASA will have a significant sum of experi-
mental data with a flight-prototypic fission power system, greatly reducing the techni-
cal and programmatic risks associated with further flight development. To complement
the hardware-rich development progress, a review of several higher power mission
studies are included to emphasize the impact of having a flight qualified fission reac-
tor. The studies cover several science missions that offer nuclear electric propulsion
with the reactor supplying power to the spacecraft’s propulsion system and the science
instruments, enabling a new class of outer planet missions. A solar versus nuclear
trade for Mars surface power is also reviewed to compare the advantages of each sys-
tem in support of ascent vehicle propellant production and human expeditions.
These mission studies offer insight into some of the benefits that fission power
has to offer but still lacks a wider audience of influence. For example, mission direc-
torates will not include a fission power system in their solicitations until it is flight
Fig. 2.41 Future NASA space exploration. (Source: NASA)

2.11 NASA Kilopower Reactor-Driven Future Space Exploration 91
Fig. 2.42 NASA Kilopower reactor. (Source: NASA)
qualified, and scientists will not propose new missions that require more power than
what is currently proven and available. An attempt to break this chicken and egg
effect has been ongoing with the Kilopower project with the goal of advancing the
technology to a level that encourages a flight development program and allows sci-
entists to propose new ideas for higher power missions.
2.11.1 NASA Kilopower and What Is Next?
When astronauts someday venture to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations, one
of the first and most important resources they will need is power. A reliable and
efficient power system will be essential for day-to-day necessities, such as lighting,
water, and oxygen, and for mission objectives, like running experiments and pro-
ducing fuel for the long journey home.
That is why NASA is conducting experiments on Kilopower, a new power source
that could provide safe, efficient, and plentiful energy for future robotic and human
space exploration missions.
This pioneering space fission power system could provide up to 10 kW of electri-
cal power—enough to run several average households—continuously for at least 10
years. Four Kilopower units would provide enough power to establish an outpost.
The prototype power system was designed and developed by NASA’s Glenn
Research Center in collaboration with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, while the reactor core was provided by the
Y12 National Security Complex. NASA Glenn shipped the prototype power system
from Cleveland to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in late September. See
Fig. 2.43.
The team at the NNSS recently began tests on the reactor core. According to
NASA Glenn’s Marc Gibson, the Kilopower lead engineer, the team will connect
the power system to the core and begin end-to-end checkouts this month. Gibson
says the experiments should conclude with a full-power test lasting approximately
28 h in late March.
The advantages of Kilopower is explained as follows:
Fission power can provide abundant energy anywhere we want humans or robots
to go. On Mars, the sun’s power varies widely throughout the seasons, and periodic
dust storms can last for months. On the Moon, the cold lunar night lingers for
14 days.
“We want a power source that can handle extreme environments,” says Lee
Mason, NASA’s principal technologist for power and energy storage. “Kilopower”
opens up the full surface of Mars, including the northern latitudes where water may
reside. On the Moon, Kilopower could be deployed to help search for resources in
permanently shadowed craters.
In these challenging environments, power generation from sunlight is difficult
and fuel supply is limited. Kilopower is lightweight, reliable, and efficient, which
makes it just right for the job.
Fig. 2.43 The Kilopower reactor. (Source: NASA)

2.12 Canada Driving Modular Nuclear Micro Reactor 93
2.12 Canada Driving Modular Nuclear Micro Reactor
As we stated in Chap. 1 of this book Canada is also pushing its demand for energy
toward small modular and micro nuclear, and their attention toward micro reactor
by reviewing their pre-licensing and demoing it by 2025 for a 4 MW size reactor
that they are calling U-Battery type as its infrastructure layout shows in Fig. 2.44.
Canada in March of 2017 start U-Battery pre-licensing process according to the
report by World Nuclear News (WNN) in 3 March 2017 [18].
The U-Battery consortium, led by Urenco, has registered its micro-modular reac-
tor technology for pre-licensing vendor design review with the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission (CNSC).
U-Battery is a “micro” nuclear reactor which will be able to produce local power
and heat for a range of energy needs, mainly targeting the markets for industrial
power units and off-grid locations. Powered by TRISO fuel, each helium gas-cooled
unit produces 10 MWt, can deliver up to 4 MWe as electricity and can provide
750 °C of process heat. TRISO fuel comprises spherical particles of uranium fuel
with a triple carbon-coating which effectively gives each tiny particle its own pri-
mary containment system. See Fig. 2.45.
The concept design of U-Battery was developed by the Universities of
Manchester, the Dalton Institute (UK) and the Technology University of Delft
(Netherlands) after the project was initiated in 2008 by Urenco. It is being devel-
oped by a consortium of Amec Foster Wheeler, Cammell-Laird, Laing O’Rourke,
and Urenco.
Fig. 2.44 4 Megawatt modular micro reactor infrastructure layout facility

Fig. 2.45 Micro reactor modular image
Fig. 2.46 TRISO fuel construction

2.12 Canada Driving Modular Nuclear Micro Reactor 95
The consortium aims to have a demonstration reactor operating by 2025 and

estimates that by the fourth-of-a-kind unit, U-Battery’s capital costs will be between
£40 and £70 million ($49 and $86 million).
The core technical specifications of U-Battery are illustrated in Fig. 2.46:
• Twin unit—each unit has an output of 4 MW electric, 10 MW thermal.
• Gas cooled—helium in primary circuit, nitrogen in secondary circuit (no water).
• TRISO fuel—high integrity. In combination with low absolute power and
absence of water eliminates need for multiple backup safety systems.
• Heat and power source—710 °C process heat.
As Fig. 2.33 shows, TRISO fuel is constructed by triple coating spherical parti-
cles of uranium fuel. A uranium center is coated in a layer of carbon, which in turn
is coated in silicon carbide, with a further outer layer of carbon.
The structure and spherical shape of TRISO fuel means that it maintains its
integrity under extreme conditions. Research has shown that even at temperatures of
up to 1800 °C (200 °C hotter than assumed accident conditions) the majority of fis-
sion products remain inside the TRISO fuel particles, significantly enhancing safety.
TRISO fuel is based on proven technology. It was originally developed in the
1980s and is currently being manufactured in the USA. See Fig. 2.47.
TRISO Coated
Fuel Particle
TRISO Fuel
Compact
0.92mm
8mm
Fuel Kernel
Low Density PyC
39mm
Silicon Carbide
High Density PyC
26mm
Fig. 2.47 TRISO fuel layout

Fig. 2.48 Micro reactor project plan development in Canada
The project plan for implementation of this micro reactor from concept to
production is depicted in Fig. 2.48.
Speaking at the UK Nuclear Industry Association’s conference on small modular
reactors (SMRs) earlier this week, Threlfall said the Canadian market for U-Battery
could be “very, very large,” with more than 300 locations, each of which could use
between one and six batteries.
Threlfall said the consortium would be looking at when it could “get involved”
in licensing in the UK. Triso fuel is already proven and is manufactured in the USA
by BWXT, but Threlfall said most of the reactor’s components could be supplied
from the UK.
The CNSC’s pre-licensing vendor review process is an optional service to
provide an assessment of a nuclear power plant design based on a vendor’s reac-
tor technology. The three-phase review is not a required part of the licensing
process for a new nuclear power plant but aims to verify the acceptability of a
design with respect to Canadian nuclear regulatory requirements and expecta-
tions. Last year, the Canadian regulator agreed to conduct a first-phase vendor
design review for LeadCold Reactor Inc’s SEALER design concept and Terrestrial
Energy’s integral molten salt reactor design concept. In addition, Canadian reac-
tor designer StarCore Nuclear applied in November to begin the vendor design
review process for its 20 MWe high temperature gas reactor, which like U-Battery
uses Triso fuel.
References 97
References
1. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reac-
tors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
4. https://www.powermag.com/big-gains-for-tiny-nuclear-reactors/
5. B. Zohuri, P. McDaniel, Advanced Smaller Modular Reactors: An Innovative Approach to Nuclear
Power, 1st edn. (Springer, Cham, 2019). https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030236816
NT14-42
9. C. Yu, Small Nuclear Reactors, Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2011

University, June 2015
11. S. Harber, Small Nuclear Reactors: Background, Potential Applications, and Challenges, 19
Feb 2017. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/harber1/
12. K. Stacey, Small Modular Reactors Are Nuclear Energy’s Future, Financial Times, 25 July
2016
13. https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/road-map-micro-reactors-defense-department
14. https://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2000s/ADA477619.pdf
15. DoD Annual Energy Management and Resilience Report FY2016
16. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2000/RR2066/
RAND_RR2066.pdf
17. DoD Summary of the National Defense Strategy of the United States of America
18. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-U-Battery-begins-Canadian-pre-licensing-
process-0303177.html
Chapter 3
Nuclear Micro Reactor Research,
Development, and Deployment
3.1 Introduction
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has opened the National Reactor Innovation
Centre (NRIC) to support the development of advanced nuclear energy technology.
A result of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), the new
center is located at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, USA.
The act was signed into law in 2018 to accelerate the development of advanced
reactors in the country by eliminating financial and technical barriers.
The US energy secretary said: “NRIC will enable the demonstration and deploy-
ment of advanced reactors that will define the future of nuclear energy.”
He also stated, “By bringing the industry together with our national labs and
university partners, we can enhance our energy independence and position the US
as a global leader in advanced nuclear innovation.”
Technology developers from the private industry will receive support from NRIC
required to test, demonstrate, and evaluate the performance of their reactor concepts.
It will also help technology developers in speeding-up the licensing and com-
mercialization of their new nuclear energy systems. As per Idaho Senator Mike
Crapo, “This is the ultimate public–private sector partnership that will take the next
step to grow clean nuclear power across the nation.”
“It makes sense that the INL is the place where private developers will now work
with the Department of Defense and Nasa to come and demonstrate new nuclear
technologies. I look forward to seeing micro reactors and small modular reactors
being built here. The best is yet to come!”
NRIC aims to demonstrate small modular reactor and micro reactor concepts in
the next 5 years.
In the fiscal year 2020 budget, the House Energy and Water Development
committee had set aside $5 million for NRIC [1].
100 3 Nuclear Micro Reactor Research, Development, and Deployment
“If you put yourself in the shoes of an investor-owned utility and they’re looking
at a combined cycle gas plant that they could build in 18 months for an installed
kilowatt hour cost of 700 or 800 bucks, versus a nuclear project that might take 10
years or more and cost 10 billion or more… That’s a very hard sell,” Daniel
Poneman, former US Deputy Secretary of Energy, and current president and CEO
of nuclear developer Centrus, told Utility Dive Tuesday at the 2019 New Nuclear
Capital Conference in Washington, DC.
Investor and owner of utility companies around the world, especially in the USA
are looking at a combined cycle gas power plant presently that within period of 18
build of such plant after installation they can produce electricity at cost of $700–
$800 per kWh, versus a nuclear power plant project for traditional type nuclear
reactor of Generation III (Gen-III) that might take 10 years or more at cost of nearly
$10 billion dollars or more (Fig. 3.1).
As we stated at the beginning of this chapter, the large-scale reactors that are the
norm across the USA do not fit in with the growing trend toward smaller, decentral-
ized power, when the demand for generating electricity exponentially growing as a
function population growth approximately at the rate of 17% per year, globally.
With new innovative combined cycle approach, thermodynamically and increas-
ing thermal efficiency output of new generation of small and advanced nuclear reac-
tor, the cost of ownership of these type of power plant decreasing [2–7].
With this innovative approach, small modular and micro reactors of advanced
types (i.e., GEN-IV and Nuclear Miro Reactor) will better fit the above mold, but
yet to enter the market and change adverse public opinion that exists to a proponent
form, given the recent disaster and accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site
(2011) in Japan.
There is no question in anybody’s mind that the demand for electricity globally
and annually is on the rise, and economically the renewable source of energy using
wind and solar along will not cut it alone, thus need for nuclear energy in an invad-
able circumstances.
Fig. 3.1 A traditional nuclear power plant facility

3.1 Introduction 101
Thus, the key question, say stakeholders, is how to spur that initial investment
and establish a commercial domestic market, with a loftier goal of establishing the
USA as a nuclear power export leader.
The key issue that impact the public opinion is safety operational assurance of
these generation of reactor that we have discussed in Sect. 3.2 of this chapter.
Recent congress direction to Department of Energy (DOE) to continue with
study of Micro Reactor Deployment the need to satisfy the Department of Defense
(DOD) for such technology for its mobility deployment of its brigade globally is on
the rise. Industries such as NuScale, Holtic, and Hitachi/GE with their approach to
Advanced Small Modular Reactor and Westinghouse with its eVinci Advanced Heat
Pipe [8, 9] Nuclear Micro Rector have gain momentums in the past decade. See
Chap. 2 of this book as well.
• DOE study would list possible military installations for micro reactors
• Study would include timeline, cost-estimates for micro reactor pilot program
• Bill also lets DOE secretary delegate many export control approvals
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress this week
includes language directing the Secretary of Energy to develop a report on a pilot
program for deploying micro reactors at national security facilities.
The Department of Energy (DOE) report identifies where micro reactors could
play a vital role in helping to harden and secure power generation at Department of
Defense (DOD) and DOE facilities.
“As an emphasis continues to be placed on clean energy, countries around the
globe are pursuing nuclear power for the carbon-free reliable electricity it p roduces,”
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) President and CEO Maria Korsnick said.
“This bill helps to ensure American companies are at the table with our foreign
competitors so that we can continue to provide our technology and, in doing so, set
international nonproliferation, security and safety standards for years to come.”
The bill defines micro reactors as reactors with a “capacity that is not greater than
50 MW.” These advanced reactor technologies have not submitted license applica-
tions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and could be deployed by the
mid-2020s.
The legislation directs DOE to develop a report to:
• Identify potential locations to site, construct, and operate a micro reactor on
DOD or DOE facilities that contain critical national security infrastructure.
• Assess different nuclear technologies to provide energy resiliency for critical
national security infrastructure.
• Survey potential commercial stakeholders with which to enter into a contract
under the pilot program to construct and operate a licensed micro reactor.
• Estimate costs of the pilot program.
• Provide a timeline of pilot program milestones.
The bill gives the DOE one year from the time of the bill’s enactment to submit
its report to Congress. The President is expected to sign the bill into law in the
coming days.
This bill also allows DOE secretary to delegate export control decision-making
as well.
The National Defense Authorization Act that Congress passed this week also
includes an important provision allowing the DOE Secretary to delegate decision-
making for commercial nuclear export controls to most countries, except with
respect to enrichment and processing of special nuclear material.
Requiring the Secretary to approve every single Part 810 specific authorization
adds substantial time to an already slow process. A recent letter [10] from experts in
the field notes: “Permitting delegation of actions under Part 810 would allow the
Secretary of Energy to focus his or her time on higher priority issues, would be a
better use of taxpayer resources and would significantly reduce regulatory burden
on the U.S. industry, without sacrificing national security interests.” See Fig. 3.2.
According to a December 2017 report by the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA)
[11], DOE approvals of Part 810 applications often take more than a year on aver-
age. By comparison, other leading nuclear supplier countries require from 5 weeks
to 3 months for an equivalent export authorization.
According to the report by NIA, the US Energy Information Administration
(EIA) projects that by 2050 countries around the world will add almost 200 GW of
new nuclear energy capacity. Those construction projects will entail the flow of new
nuclear materials, services, and equipment to a number of countries that currently
do not possess significant nuclear power programs. A growth in nuclear energy use
offers major commercial opportunities for nuclear reactor companies and carries
implications for the global nonproliferation regime. As Table 3.1 shows, most of the
expected deployments are projected to take place in countries that are not members
of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Before the first reactors are under construction, however, supplier nations typically
share proprietary information on their reactor designs with potential customer nations.
Fig. 3.2 Improving the efficiency of US export controls for nuclear energy technologies (Note:
Green Zones are clear to obtain U.S. Nuclear Technology)
3.1 Introduction 103
Table 3.1 EIA projection for additional nuclear energy capacity by region (capacity in gigawatts)
(Source: Courtesy of EIA)
Region 2015 2030 2050 Change from 2015 to 2050
OECD Courtiers 256 259 200 −56
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia 42 57 56 +14
Non-OECD Asia 39 124 231 +192
Non-OECD Americas 4 6 5 +1
Africa 2 4 6 +4
Middle East 1 12 17 +16
Total 343 462 516 +173
Fig. 3.3 Specific authorization by country, 2000–2015. (Source: DOE Reading Room) [11]
These transactions may be the first technology transfers where the government of a
supplier nation will have to consider the commercial and nonproliferation implica-
tions of broader nuclear energy cooperation with a first-time nuclear energy customer
nation. Even between countries where nuclear trade has been ongoing for decades,
new transactions such as these may pose unique and complex challenges.
Specific authorizations by country are shown in Fig. 3.3. The 2000–2015 time
period is used to give a more representative depiction of where specific authoriza-
tion applications are targeting
though some changes have already taken place. For example, the UAE became a
generally authorized destination in 2015, so activities there will no longer require
permission from the US government (unless they involve activities noted in 810.7c).
As Table 3.2 shows, the application processing times can vary greatly depending
on the destination country. This is partly a reflection of the response time of the
destination country in providing the requested assurances but may also be driven by
US considerations of the particular country involved.
Table 3.2 Specific authorization Number of Average processing

to Russia, China, and the UAE, Country authorization time (in days)
2007–2015 (Source: Data supplied
Russia 6 505
by DOE/NNSA in response to an
FOIA request by the Clean Air Task China 18 487
Force) USA 12 193
In the USA, this intersection of business and national security takes place under
the US Department of Energy (DOE) 10 CFR Part 810 (Part 810) regulations, which
control the flow of unclassified nuclear energy technology and assistance to foreign
atomic energy activities.
These regulations and their implementation are the subject of Nuclear Innovation
Alliance report. [11]
3.2 Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns
Aftermath of the major accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in
1986 and then, recent devastated Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant frailer in
Japan in March of 2011, pretty much nuclear power fell out of favor, and some
countries applied the brakes to their nuclear programs. Concerns about climate
change and air pollution, as well as growing demand for electricity, led many gov-
ernments to reconsider their aversion to nuclear power, which emits little carbon
dioxide and had built up an impressive safety and reliability record. Some countries
reversed their phase-outs of nuclear power, some extended the lifetimes of existing
reactors, and many developed plans for new ones.
Despite all these given concerns and issues in respect to the nuclear energy, still
we are facing the fact of why we still need nuclear power as clean source of energy,
particularly when, we deal with renewable source of energy arguments [12].
Today, roughly 60 nuclear plants are under construction worldwide, which will
add about 60,000 MW of generating capacity—equivalent to a sixth of the world’s
current nuclear power capacity; however, this movement has been lost after March
of 2001 and Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power episode.
Nuclear power’s track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares
favorably with other energy sources. Low natural gas prices, mostly the result of
newly accessible shale gas, have brightened the prospects that efficient gas-burning
power plants could cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants relatively
quickly by displacing old, inefficient coal plants, but the historical volatility of natu-
ral gas prices has made utility companies wary of putting all their eggs in that bas-
ket. Besides, in the long run, burning natural gas would still release too much carbon
dioxide. Wind and solar power are becoming increasingly widespread, but their
intermittent and variable supply make them poorly suited for large-scale use in the
3.2 Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns 105
absence of an affordable way to store electricity. Hydropower, meanwhile, has very

limited prospects for expansion in the USA because of environmental concerns and
the small number of potential sites [13].
As part of any nuclear power plant safety that one should consider as part of
design and operation of such source of energy is the reactor stability. Understanding
time-dependent behaviors of nuclear reactors and the methods of their control is
essential to the operation and safety of nuclear power plants. This chapter provides
researchers and engineers in nuclear engineering very general yet comprehensive
information on the fundamental theory of nuclear reactor kinetics and control and
the state-of-the-art practice in actual plants, as well as the idea of how to bridge the
two. The dynamics and stability of engineering equipment that affects their
economical and operation from safety and reliable operation point of view. In this
chapter, we will talk about the existing knowledge that is today’s practice for design
of reactor power plants and their stabilities as well as available techniques to
designers. Although stable power processes are never guaranteed. An assortment of
unstable behaviors wrecks power apparatus, including mechanical vibration, mal-
functioning control apparatus, unstable fluid flow, unstable boiling of liquids, or
combinations thereof. Failures and weaknesses of safety management systems are
the underlying causes of most accidents [14].
The safety and capital cost challenges involved with traditional nuclear power
plants may be considerable, but a new class of reactors in the development stage
holds promise for addressing them. These reactors, called small modular reactors
(SMRs), produce anywhere from 10 to 300 MW, rather than the 1000 MW produced
by a typical reactor. An entire reactor, or at least most of it, can be built in a factory
and shipped to a site for assembly, where several reactors can be installed together
to compose a larger nuclear power station. SMRs have attractive safety features,
too. Their design often incorporates natural cooling features that can continue to
function in the absence of external power, and the underground placement of the
reactors and the spent-fuel storage pools is more secure.
Since Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are smaller than conventional nuclear
plants, the construction costs for individual projects are more manageable, and thus
the financing terms may be more favorable. And because they are factory-assembled,
the on-site construction time is shorter. The utility company can build up its nuclear
power capacity step by step, adding additional reactors as needed, which means that
it can generate revenue from electricity sales sooner. This helps not only the plant
owner but also customers, who are increasingly being asked to pay higher rates
today to fund tomorrow’s plants [13].
With the US federal budget under tremendous pressure, it is hard to imagine
taxpayers funding demonstrations of a new nuclear technology. But if the USA
takes a hiatus from creating new clean-energy options—be it SMRs, renewable
energy, advanced batteries, or carbon capture and sequestration—Americans will
look back in 10 years with regret. There will be fewer economically viable options
for meeting the energy and environmental needs of the USA, and the country will
be less competitive in the global technology market.
Small modular reactors are unlikely to solve the economic and safety problems
faced by nuclear power. According to the US Department of Energy (DOE) and
some members of the nuclear industry, the next big thing in nuclear energy will be
a small thing: the “small modular reactor” (SMR).
SMRs—“small” because they generate a maximum of about 30% as much power
as typical current reactors, and “modular” because they can be assembled in facto-
ries and shipped to power plant sites—have been getting a lot of positive attention
recently, as the nuclear power industry has struggled to remain economically viable
in an era of flat demand and increasing competition from natural gas and other
energy alternatives.
SMRs have been touted as both safer and more cost-effective than older, larger
nuclear reactor designs. Proponents have even suggested that SMRs are so safe that
some current NRC regulations can be relaxed for them, arguing that they need fewer
operators and safety officers, less robust containment structures, and less elaborate
evacuation plans. Are these claims justified?
3.2.1 Are Small Modular and Micro Reactors Safer?
One of the chief selling points for SMRs is that they are supposed to be safer than
current reactor designs. However, their safety advantages are not as straightforward
as some proponents suggest:
• SMRs and Micro Reactors use passive cooling systems that do not depend on the
availability of electric power. This would be a genuine advantage under many
accident scenarios, but not all. Passive systems are not infallible, and credible
designs should include reliable active backup cooling systems. But this would
add to cost.
• SMRs and Micro Reactors feature smaller, less robust containment systems than
current reactors. This can have negative safety consequences, including a greater
probability of damage from hydrogen explosions. SMR designs include mea-
sures to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations, but they are
not as reliable as a more robust containment—which, again, would add to cost.
• Some proponents have suggested siting SMRs underground as a safety measure.
However, underground siting is a double-edged sword—it reduces risk in some
situations (such as earthquake) and increases it in others (such as flooding). It can
also make emergency intervention more difficult and it too increases cost.
• Proponents also point out that smaller reactors are inherently less dangerous than
larger ones. While this is true, it is misleading because small reactors generate
less power than large ones, and therefore more of them are required to meet the
same energy needs. Multiple SMRs and Micro Reactors may actually present a
higher risk than a single large reactor, especially if plant owners try to cut costs
by reducing support staff or safety equipment per reactor.
3.3 Economies of Scale and Catch 107
3.2.2 Shrinking Evacuation Zones
Because of SMRs alleged safety advantages, proponents have called for shrinking
the size of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding an SMR plant from the
current standard of 10 miles to as little as 1000 ft, making it easier to site the plants
near population centers and in convenient locations such as former coal plants and
military bases.
However, the lessons of Fukushima, in which radiation levels high enough to
trigger evacuation or long-term settlement were measured at as much as 20–30 miles
from the accident, suggest that these proposals, which are based on assumptions and
models that have yet to be tested in practice, may be overoptimistic.
3.3 Economies of Scale and Catch
SMR and Micro Reactors based power plants can be built with a smaller capital
investment than plants based on larger reactors. Proponents suggest that this will
remove financial barriers that have slowed the growth of nuclear power in
recent years.
However, there is a catch: “affordable” does not necessarily mean “cost-
effective.” Economies of scale dictate that, all other things being equal, larger reac-
tors will generate cheaper power. SMR proponents suggest that mass production of
modular reactors could offset economies of scale, but a 2011 study [15] concluded
that SMRs would still be more expensive than current reactors.
Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to
mass production, this advantage will only come into play when many SMRs are in
operation. But utilities are unlikely to invest in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and
Miro Reactors (MRs) until they can produce competitively priced electric power.
This Catch-22 has led some observers to conclude that the technology will require
significant government financial help to get off the ground. See Fig. 3.4.
UxC, LLC (UxC), a leader in global nuclear market analysis, is pleased to
announce a new report on the SMR Market Outlook (SMO). This 450 page report
provides comprehensive commercial and technical analysis of the overall SMR
market and detailed reviews of the leading SMR designs in the world [15].
The SMO report is the latest result of UxC’s continuing efforts to provide its
global clients with insightful products and services in the SMR sector. Contents of
the SMO include:
• Detailed commercial and technical analyses with “Pros vs. Cons” assessments of
the world’s top ten leading SMRs.
• Analysis of the key challenges for SMR deployment.
• Review of the SMR business case: economics and potential business models for
deployment.
• Competitive analysis of SMR market: US vs. international vendors.
What is the SMR

market potential?
How fast can SMRs

be deployed?
Which designs will

be the first?
2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040
Fig. 3.4 SMRs market potentials [15]
• Profiles of SMR industries in major countries.

• Global outlook for SMR deployment: potential clients and their rationales.
• SMR deployment forecasts to 2040.
3.3.1 Building a Domestic Market
Many in the nuclear industry argue that establishing the USA as a nuclear export
leader is essential to national security as well as global decarbonization. While the
Pentagon can get things rolling for small-scale nuclear, utilities will be essential to
building out the market as buyers.
“I think you see utilities, particularly in Canada, stepping up with the Canadian
government to take on that market-making role and we look forward to similar
discussions here in the U.S.,” Donald Wolf, president and CEO of Advanced Reactor
Concepts, a US-based developer, said at the New Nuclear Capital Conference.
“Before we, in effect, push these new designs on foreign countries, it really helps to
say we built it here first. We’ve improved it at home, and it’s safe for us” [16].
And some developers are moving to establish those markets for small reactors
with municipal power systems, which make for more attractive first customers than
IOUs, according to Colbert. Municipal power systems have access to a lower
weighted cost of capital, around 3–4%, compared to IOUs approximately 8–10%.
3.4 Barrier to Nuclear 109
NuScale has jointly pursued both DOD and the Utah Associated Municipal
Power Association (UAMP) as first customers. But the developer’s first plant, a 12
module, 720 MW nuclear generator, is expected to be fully operational by 2027
under UAMP, according to Colbert. And the municipal utility on Wednesday
announced it has sales contracts for enough power to begin licensing with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“The challenge [with DOD contracting] has been for the Department of Defense
to define what the requirements are, and when they want it, and how they would go
about financing that,” he said. “So far, that hasn’t come together, but it seems like
they’re moving more toward that way.”
A lot of interest in NuScale’s reactors, he said, has come from international mar-
kets, including Romania, Jordan, and Canada, that want to see that the plant is
operational before they invest.
“After that, the question is how quickly can I manufacture to scale,” said Colbert.
NuScale is in conversations with manufacturers BWX Technologies and Doosan
Heavy Industries and Construction to ultimately start manufacturing “2–3 GW per
year early on,” with a wider aim of 35 GW by 2035.
3.4 Barrier to Nuclear
Advanced reactors are not just a garden science experiment, “said Murkowski.”
There is a real private sector interest. There is capital being invested to make [them]
a reality, “but developing a first of its kind technology, we all know, is not for the
risk averse, it’s not for the faint of heart.”
With large capital investments, such as nuclear, some of that risk can turn away
private investment, said Colbert.
“If you look at nuclear, the market for energy … is pretty well known,” he said.
“What’s not so well known is how do you get through the nuclear regulatory pro-
cess, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] process.”
While safety remains a paramount concern for nuclear power, many in the indus-
try say they no longer view public perception as a major problem.
“How do we tell the masses the progress we’re making? … How do we tell
potential investors … that the risk of a nuclear event that contaminates and causes
evacuation needs is gone for your technology?” an audience member asked panelists.
“I don’t think that’s the biggest challenge facing our industry,” responded Clay
Sell, CEO of nuclear engineer and design company X-energy. “The closer people
look to a nuclear power plant and the more informed they are about nuclear power,
the more accepting and understanding they are of the risk and the more they love it.
And so that tells me that education wins.”
3.5 Unrivaled Small Modular Reactors Credentials
UxC has been actively tracking the SMR sector for many years. Along the way,
UxC’s team of reactor market analysts has been collaborating with international
consultants from industry and academia, who are authorities in reactor technology
and design.
Our first achievement in SMR analysis was the publication in 2010 of UxC’s
Small Modular Reactor Assessments (SMRA) report. This groundbreaking, in-
depth assessment of SMR technologies and the broader market was praised through-
out the industry as a thoughtful, independent, and exhaustive study of the SMR
landscape [15].
Moreover, UxC’s experts have participated in the most important conferences,
events, and initiatives related to SMRs over the years, including numerous invita-
tions to deliver presentations on various topics of interest [15].
3.6 High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU)
In this section, we cover the development of a US fuel source for advanced reactors
very briefly.
When uranium is extracted from the earth, more than 99% of the atoms are U238,
while the fissionable isotope U235 represents less than 1%. To fuel one of today’s
commercial nuclear reactors, the uranium must be enriched so that the U235 concen-
tration, or “assay,” is raised between 4 and 5%. This is called Low Enriched
Uranium (LEU).
Many of the reactor designs being prepared for future deployment will need a
higher assay uranium fuel to operate. High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU)
has a U235 assay above 5% but below 20%. This is still far below the assay required
to make weapons or to power US submarines and aircraft carriers (Fig. 3.5).
Uranium Isotopes
U-238
U-235
High-Assay
Low Enriched Highly Enriched
Low Enriched
Uranium Uranium
Uranium
3–5% U-235 5–19.75% U-235 >90% U-235
Current Commercial Reactors Next Generation Reactors U.S. Naval Reactors
Fig. 3.5 High-assay low enriched uranium fuel level

3.6 High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) 111
HALEU fuel has many advantages that improve reactor performance. Because
the U235 is more concentrated, the fuel assemblies and reactors can be smaller, which
is one reason why many Small Modular Reactor (SMR) designs will run on
HALEU. The reactors do not need to be refueled as often, and they can achieve
higher “burnup” rates, which means less fuel will be required and less waste will be
produced.
3.6.1 H
igh-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) Fuel
Fabrication
Once uranium has been enriched to a level necessary for HALEU fuel, it will need
to be fabricated into fuel forms for loading into a reactor. To that end, Centrus is
working under a contract with X-energy, a pioneering reactor and fuel company, to
pursue the development of a fuel fabrication facility that would produce X-energy’s
Uranium Oxycarbide (UCO) Tristructural Isotropic (TRISO) fuel forms using
HALEU. This unique HALEU fuel could power a variety of advanced reactors
under development around the world, ensuring a US source of supply for this emerg-
ing industry.
Estimated commercial HALEU market needs chart is depicted in Fig. 3.6.
Bear in mind the above chart does not project the account for potential DOD
needs for their need for Nuclear Micro Reactors (NMRs).
Fig. 3.6 Estimated commercial HALEU market needs. (Source for Industry Demand: Nuclear
Energy Institute’s Letter to Secretary of Energy, DOE, July 5, 2018)
3.6.2 US Enrichment Technology Demonstration
The company’s such as Centrus is working with the US Department of Energy to

deploy a small cascade of Centrus’ AC100M centrifuges at the American Centrifuge
Plant in Piketon, Ohio, to demonstrate the capability of our technology to produce
HALEU fuel needed for advanced reactors.
3.7 Nuclear Power Pros and Cons
As we know based on physics of tradition Nuclear Power Reactors (NPP), nuclear

power comes from the process of nuclear fission, or the splitting of atoms. The
resulting controlled nuclear chain reaction creates heat, which is used to boil water,
produce steam, and drive turbines that generate electricity.
Nuclear power comes from the process of nuclear fission, or the splitting of
atoms. The resulting controlled nuclear chain reaction creates heat, which is used to
boil water, produce steam, and drive turbines that generate electricity.
The USA is home to 99 nuclear power units, located in 31 states. Together, these
plants generate almost 20% of America’s electricity, or approximately 8.5% of its
total energy as per DOE [17].
However, no new nuclear reactors have started up in the USA since 1996 [18].
The last newly built reactor to enter service was Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, in 1996.
In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority voted to complete construction of Watts Bar
2. On October 22, 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 40-year
operating license for Unit 2, marking the formal end of construction and allowing for
the installation of nuclear fuel and subsequent testing. On December 15, 2015, TVA
announced that the reactor was fully loaded with fuel and is ready for criticality and
power ascension tests. Commercial Operation is expected in June 2016 [19].
From 1973 to 2010, electricity generated by nuclear plants in the USA rose
TENFOLD to over 800,000 MWh, but output has declined slightly in recent years
as several merchant plants have retired [20]. Reliability of existing plants has grown
substantially during this time, which means that existing plants are producing more
energy than in the past. Nuclear capacity factors are now averaging around 92%, up
from 56% in 1975 (i.e., Fig. 3.7) [21].
Nuclear operators can increase the rated capacity of their plants through power
up rates, which are license amendments that must be approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Up rates can vary from small (less than 2%)
increases in capacity, which require very little capital investment or plant modifica-
tions, to extended up rates of 15–20%, requiring significant modifications. It is
expected that 0.2 GW of additional nuclear power will be added between 2013 and
2040 through up rates at existing nuclear power plants [22]. The USA is the world’s
largest producer of nuclear power, but it derives a smaller percentage of its electricity
from nuclear technology than many other industrial countries. In 2013, France
derived 76% of its electricity from nuclear power. Other countries producing a high
3.7 Nuclear Power Pros and Cons 113
Fig. 3.7 Percent of total US energy consumption. (Source: EIA, MER, March 2016)
percentage of their power from nuclear energy include Belgium (54%), Switzerland
(38%), Sweden (40%), and South Korea (26%).
Nuclear energy is reliable and emission-free and is viewed by many governments
around the world as an attractive form of future electricity generation in the light of
controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
3.7.1 Nuclear Challenges
While several new US nuclear plants are planned, none have been built in decades.
A new federal law enacted in 2005 seeks to revive the construction and deployment
of nuclear power plants by granting regulatory certainty to new and safer designs of
nuclear reactors (Fig. 3.8).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides loan guarantees of up to 80% of a
project’s cost and a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kWh for new nuclear
capacity beginning operation by 2020. The tax credit is specified for the first 8 years
of operation and is limited to $125 million per GW per year. This act has spurred
applications for new plants to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, their
high capital cost is still an impediment to the deployment of these plants.
The Energy Information Administration, an independent agency in the US
Department of Energy, assumes the total overnight capital cost for a new nuclear
plant is $5366 per kW in 2013 [23] dollars. The EIA has projected the cost of
generating electricity from a new nuclear plant in 2020 (i.e., Fig. 3.9) to be 9.52
cents per kWh, about 30% higher than a natural gas combined cycle plant [24].
Fig. 3.8 Number of operable US traditional nuclear plants and cumulative shutdowns schedule
plan and timeline. (Source: EIA, MER, March 2016)
One ongoing concern in the nuclear power field is the safe disposal and isolation
of spent fuel from reactors and waste from reprocessing plants. Consumers have
paid billions of dollars in levies on their electric bills over the years to fund a gov-
ernment program to dispose of the waste. The Department of Energy has had the
responsibility for the development of waste disposal system for spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive nuclear waste since 1982 and plans had called for deposit
of the material in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but funding for this program has essen-
tially been cancelled by the Obama Administration (Fig. 3.10).
Further, the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan resulting
from an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 has caused nations around the globe
to review safety regulations for both existing and new nuclear plants [25].
Almost a year later, in February 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) approved a license allowing for the construction and conditional operation
of two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, marking
the first time the commission green-lighted construction for a new reactor since
1978 [26]. Then in March 2012, the NRC approved a second license allowing con-
struction and conditional operation of two new reactors at Scana Corp.’s Virgil
C. Summer nuclear power plant in South Carolina [27]. These four nuclear reactors
are expected to come on line in 2019 and 2020 [28].
More information on this matter can be found on DOE, NRC, and other related
energy government organizations.
3.7 Nuclear Power Pros and Cons 115
Fig. 3.9 Percent of total US central station electricity generation. (Source: EIA, MER, March
2016)
Fig. 3.10 Location of spent nuclear fuel in the USA

3.8 Conclusions
• Unless a number of optimistic assumptions are realized, SMRs are not likely to
be a viable solution to the economic and safety problems faced by nuclear power.
• While some SMR proponents are worried that the USA is lagging in the creation
of an SMR export market, cutting corners on safety is a shortsighted strategy.
• Since safety and security improvements are critical to establishing the viability
of nuclear power as an energy source for the future, the nuclear industry and the
DOE should focus on developing safer reactor designs rather than weakening
regulations.
• Congress should direct the DOE to spend taxpayer money only on support of
technologies that have the potential to provide significantly greater levels of
safety and security than currently operating reactors.
• The DOE should not be promoting the idea that SMRs do not require 10-mile
emergency planning—nor should it be encouraging the NRC to weaken its other
requirements just to facilitate SMR licensing and deployment.
• Department of Defense (DOD) is in need of Mobile Nuclear Micro Reactor for
it Brigade deployment and transportability of such reactors.
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy’s (NE) Micro
eactor Research, Development, and Deployment (RD&D) Program manages
R
national laboratory-led early-stage generic research and technology development
for micro reactor systems and provides cost shared support for micro reactor vendor
development and licensing activities through the DOENE Industry Funding
Opportunity Announcement. The program also coordinates efforts between the
Department of Defense (DOD), industry, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to support the demonstration of micro reactor technology on a DOE national
laboratory site. National laboratories supporting the Micro Reactor Program include
Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and
Sandia National Laboratory (SNL).
As DOE’s lead laboratory for nuclear energy, INL has taken the role of the lead
laboratory for the micro reactor program. INL has significant historical background
as a reactor demonstration location, has been identified as a primary candidate site
for micro reactor pilot projects by several reactor vendors, has access to fuel
fabrication capabilities, has substantial technical expertise in relevant micro reactor
technology development areas, has an extensive nuclear energy R&D infrastructure,
and has significant land available for reactor demonstration projects. LANL and
ORNL also have significant roles due to their experience in small reactor designs for
space applications and advanced materials and manufacturing capabilities. Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL) supports advanced micro reactor materials and legacy
fuel data qualification while SNL conducts innovative micro reactor energy conver-
sion system R&D. INL closely coordinates the efforts among the participating
laboratories.
References 117
In FY18, INL and LANL conducted a detailed analyses of commercial and

defense micro reactor applications to determine leading high priority micro reactor
R&D program areas. These analyses along with DoD and industry stakeholder feed-
back have formed the basis for FY19 DOE-funded micro reactor efforts in the fol-
lowing areas: accelerating micro reactor High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium
(HALEU) production and fuel fabrication capabilities, preparing potential national
laboratory micro reactor demonstration sites, demonstrating innovative cross-
cutting micro reactor technologies such a heat pipes and advanced moderators,
qualifying advanced high temperature materials, exploring additive manufacturing
techniques, developing remote monitoring and semiautonomous control systems,
and assessing potential DOE, DOD, and NRC regulatory pathways for both near-
term micro reactor demonstration licensing and future “nth of a kind” commercial
applications.
References
1. https://www.power-technology.com/news/department-energy-national-reactor-innovation-
centre/
2. B. Zohuri, P. McDaniel, Advanced Smaller Modular Reactors: An Innovative Approach
to Nuclear Power, 1st edn. (Springer, Cham, 2019). https://www.springer.com/us/
book/9783030236816
NT14-42
6. K. Stacey, Small Modular Reactors are Nuclear Energy’s Future, Financial Times, 25 July
2016
University, June 2015
10. https://www.nei.org/resources/letters-filings-comments/part-810-letter-to-congress. Last
accessed 12/6/2019
11. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5b05b3_734bca69ccc6474d949623c853e8be80.pdf. Accessed
12/6/2019 and http://www.nuclearinnovationalliance.org/part810reform
12. B. Zohuri, Hybrid Energy Systems: Driving Reliable Renewable Sources of Energy Storage,
1st edn. (Springer Publishing Company, Cham, 2018)
13. E. Moniz, http://energy.mit.edu/news/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power/
14. B. Zohuri, Neutronic Analysis for Nuclear Reactor Systems (Springer Publishing Company,
Cham, 2016)
15. https://www.uxc.com/p/products/rpt_smo.aspx. Last accessed 12/6/2019
16. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/advanced-us-nukes-need-a-boost-is-the-pentagon-the-
answer/559088/
17. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Mar 2016, http://www.eia.gov/
totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf
18. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
19. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=228&t=21 and
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station
20. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Mar 2016, http://www.eia.gov/
totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
21. Energy information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Table 8.1, Mar 2016, http://
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec8_3.pdf
22. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2015,

Electricity Market Module, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf
23. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2015,

Table 8.2, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf
24. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.
cfm and https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/electricity-generation-cost/
25.
The New York Times, 21 July 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/science/
earth/21nuke.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24
26. The Hill, OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Chu to tout nuclear in Georgia, 14 Feb 2012, http://thehill.
com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210651-overnight-energy
27. The Hill, Regulators approve construction of nuclear reactors in South Carolina, 30 Mar 2012,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219277-regulators-approve-construction-of-second-
new-nuclear-reactors-in-decades?utm_campaign=E2Wire&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_
medium=twitter
28. World Nuclear News, Start date for Vogtle units, 30 Jan 2015, http://www.world-nuclear-news.
org/NN-Start-date-delay-for-Vogtle-units-3001158.html and Power Magazine, Costs and
Deadlines Continue to Challenge V.C. Summer Nuclear Project, 19 Aug 2015, http://www.
powermag.com/challenges-continue-for-summer-nuclear-plant-project/
Index
A F
Anode, 38 Fast neutron reactor (FNR), 13
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package FedBizOpps, 68
(ALSEP), 83 Floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), 50
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), 116 Fuel cell vehicle (FCV), 34
Arizona Public Service Company (APS), 5 Funding Opportunity Announcement
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), 21 (FOA), 53
C G
CANada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU), 2 Game Changing Development (GCD), 71, 89
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (GTCC), 1
(CNSC), 5, 20, 21, 93 General Nuclear Group (CGN), 50
Cathode, 38 General Purpose Heat Source (GHPS), 80
Combined cycle (CC), 1 General Purpose Heat Source Radioisotope
Thermoelectric Generator
(GPHS-RTG), 84
D Greenhouse gas (GHG), 33
Department of Defense (DOD), 101, 116
Department of Energy (DOE), 10, 25, 52, 72,
77, 89, 99, 101, 104, 116 H
Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HSRG), 2
High-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU),
E 110, 117
Electric hydrolysis, 38 High Temperature Reactors (HTRs), 11
Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization
(NEDO), 34 I
Energy Information Administration Idaho National Laboratory (INL), 69, 99, 116
(EIA), 27, 102 Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF), 9
B. Zohuri, Nuclear Micro Reactors, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47225-2
120 Index
Integral MSR (IMSR), 22 Organization for Economic Co-operation and

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Development (OECD), 102
5, 15, 21, 41
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2
P
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), 35
K Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs),
Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology 11, 44, 49
(KRUSTY), 71
R
L Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHU), 82
Lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR), 12 Radioisotope power system (RPS), 80
Licensing Technical Support (LTS), 10 Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
Light water reactor (LWR), 2, 10, 62 (RTG), 81, 82
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), 116 Request for information (RFI), 69
Low enriched uranium (LEU), 110 Request for Proposals (RFP), 69
Research and development (R&D), 34, 83
Research, Development, and Deployment
M (RD&D), 116
Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF), 9 Return on investment (ROI), 6, 8
Miro Reactors (MRs), 107
Molten salt reactors (MSRs), 14
Multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric S
generator (MMRTG), 77, 81 Salt River Project (SRP), 5
Small modular reactors (SMRs), 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
10, 16, 18, 24, 41, 52, 53, 107, 111
N SMR Market Outlook (SMO), 107
National Defense Authorization Act Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR), 12
(NDAA), 101 Southern California Edison (SCE), 5
National Nuclear Security Administration Southern California Public Power Authority
(NASA), 72, 77, 89 (SCPPA), 5
National Reactor Innovation Centre Steam reforming, 38
(NRIC), 99 Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), 67, 75
Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), 89, 92
Non-Light Water Reactor (non-LWR), 13
Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act T
(NEICA), 99 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), 6, 8, 63
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 73, 101 Tristructural Isotropic (TRISO), 111
Nuclear energy’s (NE), 116
Nuclear micro reactors (NMRs), 16, 42, 111
Nuclear power plants (NPPs), 7, 9, 10, 62 U
Nuclear power reactors (NPP), 112 U.S. Air Force (USAF), 68
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2, United Kingdom (UK), 8
13, 15, 18, 25, 54, 57, 63, 65, 112 United States (US), 8
Nuclear Waste Management Organization Uranium Oxycarbide (UCO), 111
(NWMO), 21 Utah Associated Municipal Power Association
NuScale Power, 2 (UAMP), 109
NuScale Power Module (NPM), 57 UxC, LLC (UxC), 107
O W
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 116 World Nuclear Association (WNA), 17

2020 Book NuclearMicroReactors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Book NuclearMicroReactors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Book NuclearMicroReactors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bahman

Nuclear Micro Reactors

ISBN 978-3-030-47224-5 ISBN 978-3-030-47225-2 (eBook)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for

Albuquerque, NM Bahman Zohuri

1 Nuclear Micro Reactors: The Next Wave of Innovation���������������������� 1

2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application ���������������������������� 67

Bahman Zohuri currently works for Galaxy Advanced Engineering, Inc., a

Fig. 1.1 A conceptual illustration of Small Modular Reactor on a truck

Fig. 1.2 CANDU reactor schematic. (Source: Canadian Nuclear FAQ)

There are currently 18 CANDU reactors in operation in Canada: 8 at Bruce

In a news released in November 7, 2018, Canada, Poised to Lead the Deployment

1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor?

Based on augmentation of Nuclear Power Plant in Canada that are operating on

Fig. 1.3 Aerial photo of Palo Verde Generation Station

Fig. 1.4 Modular reactor concept. (Source: Generation IV International Forum)

Fig. 1.7 Artistic layout of SMR installation

1.4 Nuclear Reactors Driving Electricity Generation

Fig. 1.8 Heat generated

reactor developers regarding similar arrangements, aiming to have in 10–15 years a

Fig. 1.9 Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). (Source: www.wikipedia.com)

Pumps with short shaft

Fig. 1.10 Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)

Emergency Decay heat

Note that a Fast-Neutron Reactor (FNR) or simply a fast reactor is a category of

Fig. 1.12 Example of a Molten Salt Reactor scheme. (Source: www.wikipedia.com)

Fig. 1.13 NuScale small

Fig. 1.14 Possible Holtic

In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about

1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications

Six-foot tall man

1.7 Integral Modular Small Modular Reactor

Fig. 1.19 Conceptual layout of nuclear micro reactor

Fig. 1.20 Conceptual advanced modular reactor layout

1.8 Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources

Fig. 1.21 A typical High Temperature Reactor (HTR) configuration

2017–2018 that examine potential financing opportunities and structures, resiliency

Fig. 1.22 Coal plant shutdown schedule

Fig. 1.23 Energy fuel density

Fig. 1.25 Cost of

Energy Points’ methodology measures environmental externalities and calculates

Research is going forward to produce hydrogen based on nuclear energy. Hydrogen

Fig. 1.26 A typical oil refinery plant

The principal drivers of this growth in refinery hydrogen demand are:

Fig. 1.28 A typical metal refining plant

Heat exchanger Expansion

Fig. 1.29 Flow of liquid hydrogen production facilities

Other applications of hydrogen in industry that worth to mention are listed

Fig. 2.1 Big potential of

2.2 Modular Construction Using Small Reactor Units

Fig. 2.2 Artistic depiction of Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor

Clean Energy Comparison

Average Solar Power

The Westinghouse SMR

Fig. 2.3 Clean energy comparison

• Operational costs are lowered due to minimized chemistry change requirements.

Fig. 2.4 The Westinghouse

sustainable power with improved reliability and minimal maintenance, particularly

Fig. 2.7 UK Nuclear submarine layout

Albuquerque, NM Bahman Zohuri

1 Nuclear Micro Reactors: The Next Wave of Innovation�� 1

2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application �� 67

1.3 What is a Small Modular Reactor?

1.4 Nuclear Reactors Driving Electricity Generation

1.6 Small Modular Reactors Applications

1.7 Integral Modular Small Modular Reactor

1.8 Small Modular Reactors as Renewable Energy Sources

2.2 Modular Construction Using Small Reactor Units

2.3 A Novel Heat Pipe Reactor

2.4 Heat Pipe Brief Summary

2.4.1 Heat Pipe Materials and Working Fluids

2.4.2 Different Types of Heat Pipes

2.4.3 Nuclear Power Conversion

2.4.4 Benefits of These Devices

2.6 Nuclear Micro Reactor and Military Application

2.6.1 Department of Defense Requirements

2.7.1 Power From Plutonium

2.7.3 Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHU)

2.8 Additional Nuclear Technologies for Space Exploration

2.9 Reaching For Interstellar Space

2.10 Mission to Mars

2.11.1 NASA Kilopower and What Is Next?

2.12 Canada Driving Modular Nuclear Micro Reactor