IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency
INPRO Dialogue Forum on Nuclear Energy Innovations:
“Common User Considerations for Small and Medium-sized Nuclear Power Reactors”
IAEA Headquarters, Vienna, AUSTRIA, 10 – 14 October, 2011
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
IAEA
Geographical Distribution and Grids
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Future
Present
IAEA
Benefits of Introducing SMRs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Impediments of Introducing SMRs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
A. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IAEA
30-40
40-50
50-60
No On-Site
On-Line
>10 Years
5-10 Years
3-5 Years
24-36 Mos
18-24 Mos
12-18 Mos
Plant Lifetime Operation cycle length
between refuelling
Safe Shutdown
Continuous
Operation with
House Load
Power Reduction
with house load
Load rejection
On-line
Allowable
Outages
Inspection & maintenance
Plant Lifetime, Operation Cycle, Load
Rejection, Inspection and Maintenance
25%
47%28%
74%
7%
19%
68%
32%
22%19%
16%19%
9%
9%
3%
3%
IAEA
Modularization Construction period
Non-electric application
Less than 4 years
Less than 5 years
Less than 6 years
Desalination
H2 Production
District Heating
Process Heat
Shared
Containment
Separate
Secondary
Not Necessary
Modularization, Construction Period, and
Non-electric application
60%
30%
10%
39%
22%
24%
15%
79%
19%
2%
IAEA
B. ECONOMICS and FINANCING
IAEA
Economic Drivers
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Levelized Unit
Electricity Cost
Total energy
Cost
Overnight
Interest cost
Optimum
utilization of
infrastructure
and HR
Industrialization
and HR
development
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Methodology Tools for Assessment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
MESSAGE FINPLAN G4ECONS PVCC INCAS
Very Familiar
More Familiar
Familiar
Less Familiar
Not Familiar
IAEA
Economic Advantages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
05
101520253035
Multiple units
and learning
Plant design
and
modularization
Construction
schedule
Unit timing Economy of
mass
production
Fitness to small
electrical grids
TRUE
FALSE
IAEA
Economic Disadvantages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Higher unit
capital cost
Higher O&M
cost
Higher fuel
cost
Less
proliferation
resistance
Lack of
suitable and
proven
designs
Spent fuel
management
uncertainties
Threat of
nuclear
terrorist
Assurance of
fuel assembly
supply
TRUE
FALSE
IAEA
<50%
50-80%
80-100%
Same
100-120%
Other
Fuel Cycle Cost
<50%
50-80%
80-100%
Same
100-120%
Other
O&M Cost
Fuel Cycle Cost and O&M Cost
24%
27%
27%
18%
4%
33%
24%
15%
24%
4%
IAEA
Capital Investment Cost
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Construction Duration
FOAK factors
Factory Fabrication
Design Simplification
IAEA
C. INFRASTRUCTURE
IAEA
Infrastructure Issues
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Site Selection
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Distance
from
application
centres
Space Access to
cooling
water
Combined
external
initiating
events
Extreme
weather
temperature
Security Overall
energy
resources
distribution
Grid
structure
and
potential
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Degree of User’s Involvement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No Involvement
Training
Active
IAEA
Multiple
Split
Turnkey
Project Finance
BOT
BOO
15%
Type of Contract
System License
Know-how
Codes and
Methods
Fuel License
Normal
Other
Technology Transfer
Financial
Licensing
Workforce
Localization
Liability
Fuel Supply
Support from System Supplier
Type of Contract, Technology Transfer,
and Support from System Supplier
37%
18%
21%
6%
3%
33%
29%
17%
14%
4%
3%
22% 23%
13.5%
18%
14%9.5%
IAEA
D. SAFETY
IAEA
Safety Features and Measures
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
E. ENVIRONMENT
IAEA
Environmental Issues and Effects on Land
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Environmental Effects during Operation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Water Quality Physical Effects Biological Effects Radiological Impact
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
F. PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE
IAEA
Intrinsic Features and Safeguards Regime
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Features and
measures
different from
large NPPs
Sufficient
intrinsic
barriers
User's
understanding
against prolif.
for signatories
NPT/other
Design
friendliness to
current IAEA
safeguards
regime
Better
understanding
of international
safeguards
Countryspecific
safeguards
requirements
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
Proliferation Resistance Measures/Actions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Technical Organization Institutional
arrangements
Political
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
G. SECURITY / PHYSICAL
PROTECTION
IAEA
Types of Threat, Nuclear Security Concerns
and Adversary Scenario
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very Important
More Important
Important
Less Important
Not Important
IAEA
H. FUEL
IAEA
Assurance of Fuel Supply – LEU and MOX
UF6 assurance
UO powder
assurance
UO pellet
assurance
Zircaloy cladded
FA assurance
Ceramic clad FA
assurance
More than one
supplier
Committed one
supplier
Technology
transfer
Other
Assurance of LEU
MOX powder
assurance
MOX pellet
assurance
MOX zircaloy clad
FA assurance
MOX zircaloy clad
FA assurance
More than one
supplier
Committed one
supplier
Technology
transfer
Other
Assurance of MOX
14%
12%
18%
10%
12%
10%
5%
18% 15%
13%
15%
27%
12%
13%
4%
IAEA
Assurance of Fuel Supply – Advanced Fuel
LEU/UF6 assurance
LEU/MOX powder assurance
LEU/UPu non-oxide powder assurance
LEU/MOX FA assurance
LEU/UPu non-oxide FA assurance
More than one supplier
Committed one supplier
Technology transfer
Other
5%
1%6.5%
9%
13%
12%
25%
13%
15.5%
IAEA
Assurance of Spent Fuel Management
SF storage <50 years assurance
SF storage <100 years assurance
SF storage >100 years assurance
Reprocessing with full return
Reprocessing w/o U return
Reprocessing with ILW/HLW return
Reprocessing w/o return
Reprocessing with return of fuel and
no waste
Spent fuel take back
More than 1 suppliers
Committed one supplier
Technology transfer
Other
5%
5%
7%
6%
6%
9%
9%11%
13%
22%
3%
3%
1%
IAEA
I. Waste Management
IAEA
Rad Waste
Processing
Rad Waste
Storage
Fuel Take Back
No Requirements
Radioactive Waste Management
Not Needed
Can be Useful
Necessary
Waste Management Policy
Supplier Offer
Global
Experience
RWM Policy
Waste Capacity
Waste Management, Policy and Capacity
39%
24%
26% (90% full
operational
lifetime)
11%
70%
26%
4%
52%
17%
31%
