NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

A nuclear reactor produces and controls the release of energy from splitting the atoms of certain
elements. In a nuclear power reactor, the energy released is used as heat to make steam to generate electricity.
(In a research reactor the main purpose is to utilize the actual neutrons produced in the core. In most naval
reactors, steam drives a turbine directly for propulsion.)
The principles for using nuclear power to produce electricity are the same for most types of reactor. The energy
released from continuous fission of the atoms of the fuel is harnessed as heat in either a gas or water, and is
used to produce steam. The steam is used to drive the turbines which produce electricity (as in most fossil fuel
plants).
The world's first nuclear reactors 'operated' naturally in a uranium deposit about two billion years ago. These
were in rich uranium orebodies and moderated by percolating rainwater. The 17 known at Oklo in west Africa,
each less than 100 kW thermal, together consumed about six tons of that uranium. It is assumed that these were
not unique worldwide.
Today, reactors derived from designs originally developed for propelling submarines and large naval ships
generate about 85% of the world's nuclear electricity. The main design is the pressurized water reactor (PWR)
which has water at over 300°C under pressure in its primary cooling/heat transfer circuit, and generates steam in
a secondary circuit. The less numerous boiling water reactor (BWR) makes steam in the primary circuit above
the reactor core, at similar temperatures and pressure. Both types use water as both coolant and moderator, to
slow neutrons. Since water normally boils at 100°C, they have robust steel pressure vessels or tubes to enable
the higher operating temperature. (Another type uses heavy water, with deuterium atoms, as moderator. Hence
the term ‘light water’ is used to differentiate.)
COMPONENTS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR

Fuel
Uranium is the basic fuel. Usually pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) are arranged in tubes to form fuel rods. The
rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core.* In a 1000 MWe class PWR there might be 51,000
fuel rods with over 18 million pellets.
* In a new reactor with new fuel a neutron source is needed to get the reaction going. Usually this is beryllium mixed with polonium,
radium or other alpha-emitter. Alpha particles from the decay cause a release of neutrons from the beryllium as it turns to carbon-12.
Restarting a reactor with some used fuel may not require this, as there may be enough neutrons to achieve criticality when control rods
are removed.

Moderator
Material in the core which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is
usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite.
Control rods
These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or
withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it.* In some PWR reactors, special control
rods are used to enable the core to sustain a low level of power efficiently. (Secondary control systems involve
other neutron absorbers, usually boron in the coolant – its concentration can be adjusted over time as the fuel
burns up.) PWR control rods are inserted from the top, BWR cruciform blades from the bottom of the core.
* In fission, most of the neutrons are released promptly, but some are delayed. These are crucial in enabling a chain reacting system
(or reactor) to be controllable and to be able to be held precisely critical.

Coolant
A fluid circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the water moderator
functions also as primary coolant. Except in BWRs, there is secondary coolant circuit where the water becomes
steam. (See also later section on primary coolant characteristics.) A PWR has two to four primary coolant loops
with pumps, driven either by steam or electricity – China’s Hualong One design has three, each driven by a 6.6
MW electric motor, with each pump set weighing 110 tonnes.
Pressure vessel or pressure tubes
Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes
holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the surrounding moderator.
Steam generator
Part of the cooling system of pressurised water reactors (PWR & PHWR) where the high-pressure primary
coolant bringing heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine, in a secondary circuit. Essentially a
heat exchanger like a motor car radiator.* Reactors have up to six 'loops', each with a steam generator. Since
1980 over 110 PWR reactors have had their steam generators replaced after 20-30 years service, 57 of these in
USA.
* These are large heat exchangers for transferring heat from one fluid to another – here from high-pressure primary circuit in PWR to
secondary circuit where water turns to steam. Each structure weighs up to 800 tonnes and contains from 300 to 16,000 tubes about 2
cm diameter for the primary coolant, which is radioactive due to nitrogen-16 (N-16, formed by neutron bombardment of oxygen, with
half-life of 7 seconds). The secondary water must flow through the support structures for the tubes. The whole thing needs to be
designed so that the tubes don't vibrate and fret, operated so that deposits do not build up to impede the flow, and maintained
chemically to avoid corrosion. Tubes which fail and leak are plugged, and surplus capacity is designed to allow for this. Leaks can be
detected by monitoring N-16 levels in the steam as it leaves the steam generator.

Containment
The structure around the reactor and associated steam generators which is designed to protect it from outside
intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any serious malfunction inside. It is
typically a metre-thick concrete and steel structure.
Newer Russian and some other reactors install core melt localisation devices or 'core catchers' under the
pressure vessel to catch any melted core material in the event of a major accident.
There are several different types of reactors as indicated in the following table.

FUELLING A NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR

Most reactors need to be shut down for refueling, so that the reactor vessel can be opened up. In this case
refueling is at intervals of 12, 18 or 24 months, when a quarter to a third of the fuel assemblies are replaced with
fresh ones. The CANDU and RBMK types have pressure tubes (rather than a pressure vessel enclosing the
reactor core) and can be refueled under load by disconnecting individual pressure tubes.
If graphite or heavy water is used as moderator, it is possible to run a power reactor on natural instead of
enriched uranium. Natural uranium has the same elemental composition as when it was mined (0.7% U-235,
over 99.2% U-238), enriched uranium has had the proportion of the fissile isotope (U-235) increased by a
process called enrichment, commonly to 3.5 - 5.0%. In this case the moderator can be ordinary water, and such
reactors are collectively called light water reactors. Because the light water absorbs neutrons as well as slowing
them, it is less efficient as a moderator than heavy water or graphite.
During operation, some of the U-238 is changed to plutonium, and Pu-239 ends up providing about one-third of
the energy from the fuel.
In most reactors the fuel is ceramic uranium oxide (UO2 with a melting point of 2800°C) and most is enriched.
The fuel pellets (usually about 1 cm diameter and 1.5 cm long) are typically arranged in a long zirconium alloy
(zircaloy) tube to form a fuel rod, the zirconium being hard, corrosion-resistant and transparent to neutrons.*
Numerous rods form a fuel assembly, which is an open lattice and can be lifted into and out of the reactor core.
In the most common reactors these are about 4 meters long. A BWR fuel assembly may be about 320 kg, a
PWR one 655 kg, in which case they hold 183 kg uranium and 460 kgU respectively. In both, about 100 kg of
zircaloy is involved.
* Zirconium is an important mineral for nuclear power, where it finds its main use. It is therefore subject to controls on trading. It is
normally contaminated with hafnium, a neutron absorber, so very pure 'nuclear grade' Zr is used to make the zircaloy, which is about
98% Zr plus about 1.5% tin, also iron, chromium and sometimes nickel to enhance its strength. 

A significant industry initiative is to develop accident-tolerant fuels which are more resistant to melting under
conditions such as those in the Fukushima accident, and with the cladding being more resistant to oxidation
with hydrogen formation at very high temperatures under such conditions.
Burnable poisons are often used in fuel or coolant to even out the performance of the reactor over time from
fresh fuel being loaded to refueling. These are neutron absorbers which decay under neutron exposure,
compensating for the progressive build-up of neutron absorbers in the fuel as it is burned, and hence allowing
higher fuel burn-up (in terms of GW days per tonne of U)*. The best known is gadolinium, which is a vital
ingredient of fuel in naval reactors where installing fresh fuel is very inconvenient, so reactors are designed to
run more than a decade between refueling (full power equivalent – in practice they are not run continuously).
Gadolinium is incorporated in the ceramic fuel pellets. An alternative is zirconium diboride integral fuel
burnable absorber (IFBA) as a thin coating on normal pellets.
* Average burn-up of fuel discharged from US reactors has increase to nearly 50 GWd/t, from half that in the 1980s.

Gadolinium, mostly at up to 3g oxide per kilogram of fuel, requires slightly higher fuel enrichment to
compensate for it, and also after burn-up of about 17 GWd/t it retains about 4% of its absorbtive effect and does
not decrease further. The ZrB2 IFBA burns away more steadily and completely, and has no impact on fuel pellet
properties. It is now used in most US reactors and a few in Asia. China has the technology for AP1000 reactors.

THE POWER RATING OF A NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR

Nuclear plant reactor power outputs are quoted in three ways:

 Thermal MWt, which depends on the design of the actual nuclear reactor itself, and relates to the
quantity and quality of the steam it produces.
 Gross electrical MWe, which indicates the power produced by the attached steam turbine and generator,
and also takes into account the ambient temperature for the condenser circuit (cooler means more
electric power, warmer means less). Rated gross power assumes certain conditions with both.
 Net electrical MWe, which is the power available to be sent out from the plant to the grid, after
deducting the electrical power needed to run the reactor (cooling and feedwater pumps, etc.) and the rest
of the plant.*

* Net electrical MWe and gross MWe vary slightly from summer to winter, so normally the lower summer figure, or an average
figure, is used. If the summer figure is quoted, plants may show a capacity factor greater than 100% in cooler times. Watts Bar PWR
in Tennessee is reported to run at about 1125 MWe in summer and about 1165 MWe net in winter, due to different condenser cooling
water temperatures. Some design options, such as powering the main large feedwater pumps with electric motors (as in EPR or
Hualong One) rather than steam turbines (taking steam before it gets to the main turbine-generator), explains some gross to net
differences between different reactor types. The EPR has a relatively large drop from gross to net MWe for this reason, and as noted
above, the Hualong One needs 20 MWe to run its primary pumps.

The relationship between these is expressed in two ways:

 Thermal efficiency %, the ratio of gross MWe to thermal MW. This relates to the difference in
temperature between the steam from the reactor and the cooling water. It is often 33-37% in light water
reactors, reaching 38% in the latest PWRs.
 Net efficiency %, the ratio of net MWe achieved to thermal MW. This is a little lower, and allows for
plant usage.

In World Nuclear Association papers and figures and World Nuclear News items, generally net MWe is used
for operating plants, and gross MWe for those under construction or planned/proposed.
PRESSURISED WATER REACTOR (PWR)
This is the most common type, with about 300 operable reactors for power generation and several hundred more
employed for naval propulsion. The design of PWRs originated as a submarine power plant. PWRs use ordinary
water as both coolant and moderator. The design is distinguished by having a primary cooling circuit which
flows through the core of the reactor under very high pressure, and a secondary circuit in which steam is
generated to drive the turbine. In Russia these are known as VVER types – water-moderated and -cooled.
 

 
A PWR has fuel assemblies of 200-300 rods each, arranged vertically in the core, and a large reactor would
have about 150-250 fuel assemblies with 80-100 tonnes of uranium.
Water in the reactor core reaches about 325°C, hence it must be kept under about 150 times atmospheric
pressure to prevent it boiling. Pressure is maintained by steam in a pressurizer (see diagram). In the primary
cooling circuit the water is also the moderator, and if any of it turned to steam the fission reaction would slow
down. This negative feedback effect is one of the safety features of the type. The secondary shutdown system
involves adding boron to the primary circuit.
The secondary circuit is under less pressure and the water here boils in the heat exchangers which are thus
steam generators. The steam drives the turbine to produce electricity, and is then condensed and returned to the
heat exchangers in contact with the primary circuit.

BOILING WATER REACTOR (BWR)

This type of reactor has many similarities to the PWR, except that there is only a single circuit in which the
water is at lower pressure (about 75 times atmospheric pressure) so that it boils in the core at about 285°C. The
reactor is designed to operate with 12-15% of the water in the top part of the core as steam, and hence with less
moderating effect and thus efficiency there. BWR units can operate in load-following mode more readily than
PWRs.
The steam passes through drier plates (steam separators) above the core and then directly to the turbines, which
are thus part of the reactor circuit. Since the water around the core of a reactor is always contaminated with
traces of radionuclides, it means that the turbine must be shielded and radiological protection provided during
maintenance. The cost of this tends to balance the savings due to the simpler design. Most of the radioactivity in
the water is very short-lived*, so the turbine hall can be entered soon after the reactor is shut down.
* mostly N-16, with a 7 second half-life

A BWR fuel assembly comprises 90-100 fuel rods, and there are up to 750 assemblies in a reactor core, holding
up to 140 tonnes of uranium. The secondary control system involves restricting water flow through the core so
that more steam in the top part reduces moderation.
 
 

PRESSURISED HEAVY WATER REACTOR (PHWR)

The PHWR reactor has been developed since the 1950s in Canada as the CANDU, and from 1980s also in
India. PHWRs generally use natural uranium (0.7% U-235) oxide as fuel, hence needs a more efficient
moderator, in this case heavy water (D2O).** The PHWR produces more energy per kilogram of mined uranium
than other designs, but also produces a much larger amount of used fuel per unit output.
** with the CANDU system, the moderator is enriched (i.e. water) rather than the fuel – a cost trade-off.

The moderator is in a large tank called a calandria, penetrated by several hundred horizontal pressure tubes
which form channels for the fuel, cooled by a flow of heavy water under high pressure (about 100 times
atmospheric pressure) in the primary cooling circuit, typically reaching 290°C. As in the PWR, the primary
coolant generates steam in a secondary circuit to drive the turbines. The pressure tube design means that the
reactor can be refueled progressively without shutting down, by isolating individual pressure tubes from the
cooling circuit. It is also less costly to build than designs with a large pressure vessel, but the tubes have not
proved as durable.
 

 
 
A CANDU fuel assembly consists of a bundle of 37 half metre long fuel rods (ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy
tubes) plus a support structure, with 12 bundles lying end to end in a fuel channel. Control rods penetrate the
calandria vertically, and a secondary shutdown system involves adding gadolinium to the moderator. The heavy
water moderator circulating through the body of the calandria vessel also yields some heat (though this circuit is
not shown on the diagram above).
Newer PHWR designs such as the Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR) have light water cooling and slightly-
enriched fuel.
CANDU reactors can accept a variety of fuels. They may be run on recycled uranium from reprocessing LWR
used fuel, or a blend of this and depleted uranium left over from enrichment plants. About 4000 MWe of PWR
might then fuel 1000 MWe of CANDU capacity, with addition of depleted uranium. Thorium may also be used
in fuel.

ADVANCED GAS-COOLED REACTOR (AGR)

These are the second generation of British gas-cooled reactors, using graphite moderator and carbon dioxide as
primary coolant. The fuel is uranium oxide pellets, enriched to 2.5 - 3.5%, in stainless steel tubes. The carbon
dioxide circulates through the core, reaching 650°C and then past steam generator tubes outside it, but still
inside the concrete and steel pressure vessel (hence 'integral' design). Control rods penetrate the moderator and a
secondary shutdown system involves injecting nitrogen to the coolant. The high temperature gives it a high
thermal efficiency – about 41%.
 

 
 
The AGR was developed from the Magnox reactor. Magnox reactors were also graphite moderated and
CO2 cooled, used natural uranium fuel in metal form, and water as secondary coolant. The UK's last Magnox
reactor closed at the end of 2015. 

LIGHT WATER GRAPHITE-MODERATED REACTOR (LWGR)

The main LWGR design is the RBMK, a Soviet design, developed from plutonium production reactors. It
employs long (7 meter) vertical pressure tubes running through graphite moderator, and is cooled by water,
which is allowed to boil in the core at 290°C and at about 6.9 MPa, much as in a BWR. Fuel is low-enriched
uranium oxide made up into fuel assemblies 3.5 meters long. With moderation largely due to the fixed graphite,
excess boiling simply reduces the cooling and neutron absorption without inhibiting the fission reaction, and a
positive feedback problem can arise, which is why they have never been built outside the Soviet Union. See
appendix on RBMK Reactors for further information.

ADVANCED REACTORS
Several generations of reactors are commonly distinguished. Generation I reactors were developed in the 1950-
60s and the last one (Wylfa 1 in the UK) shut down at the end of 2015. They mostly used natural uranium fuel
and used graphite as moderator. Generation II reactors are typified by the present US fleet and most in operation
elsewhere. They typically use enriched uranium fuel and are mostly cooled and moderated by water. Generation
III are the advanced reactors evolved from these, the first few of which are in operation in Japan and from early
2018, in China and the UAE. Others are under construction and ready to be ordered. They are developments of
the second generation with enhanced safety. There is no clear distinction between Generation II and Generation
III.
Generation IV designs are still on the drawing board and will not be operational before the mid-2020s. They
will tend to have closed fuel cycles and burn the long-lived actinides now forming part of spent fuel, so that
fission products are the only high-level waste. Of seven designs under development, four or five will be fast
neutron reactors. Four will use fluoride or liquid metal coolants, hence operate at low pressure. Two will be gas-
cooled. Most will run at much higher temperatures than today’s water-cooled reactors. See Generation IV
Reactors paper.
More than a dozen (Generation III) advanced reactor designs are in various stages of development. Some are
evolutionary from the PWR, BWR and CANDU designs above, some are more radical departures. The former
include the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, a few of which are now operating with others under construction.
The best-known radical new design has the fuel as large 'pebbles' and uses helium as coolant, at very high
temperature, possibly to drive a turbine directly.
Considering the closed fuel cycle, Generation I-III reactors recycle plutonium (and possibly uranium), while
Generation IV are expected to have full actinide recycle.
Many advanced reactor designs are for small units – under 300 MWe – and in the category of small modular
reactors (SMRs), since several of them together may comprise a large power plant, maybe built progressively.
Apart from the normal oxide fuels, other fuel types are metal, TRISO*, carbide, nitride, or liquid salt.
* TRISO (tristructural-isotropic) particles less than a millimeter in diameter. Each has a kernel (c. 0.5 mm) of uranium oxycarbide (or
uranium dioxide), with the uranium enriched up to 20% U-235. This kernel is surrounded by layers of carbon and silicon carbide,
giving a containment for fission products which is stable to over 1600°C.

FAST NEUTRON REACTORS (FNR)

Some reactors do not have a moderator and utilize fast neutrons, generating power from plutonium while
making more of it from the U-238 isotope in or around the fuel. While they get more than 60 times as much
energy from the original uranium compared with the normal reactors, they are expensive to build. Further
development of them is likely in the next decade, and the main designs expected to be built in two decades are
FNRs. If they are configured to produce more fissile material (plutonium) than they consume they are called
fast breeder reactors (FBR). See also Fast Neutron Reactors and Small Reactors papers.

FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Apart from over 200 nuclear reactors powering various kinds of ships, Rosatom in Russia has set up a
subsidiary to supply floating nuclear power plants ranging in size from 70 to 600 MWe. These will be mounted
in pairs on a large barge, which will be permanently moored where it is needed to supply power and possibly
some desalination to a shore settlement or industrial complex. The first has two 40 MWe reactors based on
those in icebreakers and was connected to the grid in Pevek, Siberia in December 2019. Electricity cost is
expected to be much lower than from present alternatives.
The Russian KLT-40S is a reactor well proven in icebreakers and now proposed for wider use in desalination
and, on barges, for remote area power supply. Here a 150 MWt unit produces 35 MWe (gross) as well as up to
35 MW of heat for desalination or district heating. These are designed to run 3-4 years between refueling and it
is envisaged that they will be operated in pairs to allow for outages, with on-board refueling capability and used
fuel storage. At the end of a 12-year operating cycle the whole plant is taken to a central facility for two-year
overhaul and removal of used fuel, before being returned to service. Two units will be mounted on a 21,000
tonne barge. A larger Russian factory-built and barge-mounted reactor is the VBER-150, of 350 MW thermal,
110 MWe. The larger VBER-300 PWR is a 325 MWe unit, originally envisaged in pairs as a floating nuclear
power plant, displacing 49,000 tonnes. As a cogeneration plant it is rated at 200 MWe and 1900 GJ/h. See
also Nuclear Power in Russia paper.

LIFETIME OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Most of today's nuclear plants which were originally designed for 30 or 40-year operating lives. However, with
major investments in systems, structures and components lives can be extended, and in several countries, there
are active programs to extend operating lives. In the USA most of the more than one hundred reactors are
expected to be granted license extensions from 40 to 60 years. This justifies significant capital expenditure in
upgrading systems and components, including building in extra performance margins.
Some components simply wear out, corrode or degrade to a low level of efficiency. These need to be replaced.
Steam generators are the most prominent and expensive of these, and many have been replaced after about 30
years where the reactor otherwise has the prospect of running for 60 years. This is essentially an economic
decision. Lesser components are more straightforward to replace as they age. In Candu reactors, pressure tube
replacement has been undertaken on some plants after about 30 years operation.
A second issue is that of obsolescence. For instance, older reactors have analogue instrument and control
systems. Thirdly, the properties of materials may degrade with age, particularly with heat and neutron
irradiation. In respect to all these aspects, investment is needed to maintain reliability and safety. Also, periodic
safety reviews are undertaken on older plants in line with international safety conventions and principles to
ensure that safety margins are maintained.
Another important issue is knowledge management over the full lifecycle from design, through construction and
operation to decommissioning for reactors and other facilities. This may span a century and involve several
countries, and involve a succession of companies. The plant lifespan will cover several generations of
engineers. Data needs to be transferable across several generations of software and IT hardware, as well as
being shared with other operators of similar plants.* Significant modifications may be made to the design over
the life of the plant, so original documentation is not sufficient, and loss of design base knowledge can have
huge implications (e.g. Pickering A and Bruce A in Ontario). Knowledge management is often a shared
responsibility and is essential for effective decision-making and the achievement of plant safety and economics.
* ISO15926 covers portability and interoperability for lifecycle open data standard. Also EPRI in 2013 published Advanced
Nuclear Technology: New Nuclear Power Plant Information Handover Guide.

LOAD-FOLLOWING CAPABILITY
Nuclear power plants are best run continuously at high capacity to meet base-load demand in a grid system. If
their power output is ramped up and down on a daily and weekly basis, efficiency is compromised, and in this
respect, they are similar to most coal-fired plants. (It is also uneconomic to run them at less than full capacity,
since they are expensive to build but cheap to run.) However, in some situations it is necessary to vary the
output according to daily and weekly load cycles on a regular basis, for instance in France, where there is a very
high reliance on nuclear power. Areva has developed its Advanced Load-Following Control System for PWRs
that automatically adjusts the plant's electrical output according to the needs of the grid operator. It involves a
software upgrade of the reactor control system which varies the plant's output between 50% and 100% of its
installed capacity without intervention of the operator. Since 2008, Areva NP has installed the technology at
four German nuclear power plants: Philippsburg 2, Isar 2, Brokdorf, and Grohnde, as well as Goesgen in
Switzerland.
BWRs can be made to follow loads reasonably easily without burning the core unevenly, by changing the
coolant flow rate. Load following is not as readily achieved in a PWR, but especially in France since 1981, so-
called 'grey' control rods are used. The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the time
depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is
designed with special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without shutting it down.
Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
markedly as it progresses through the refueling cycle, there is considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors
in load-following mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs
must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of
3-5% per minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive
plant. Further information in the Nuclear Power in France paper and the 2011 Nuclear Energy Agency
report, Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants.
As fast neutron reactors become established in future years, their ability to load-follow will be a benefit.

PRIMARY COOLANTS
The advent of some of the designs mentioned above provides opportunity to review the various primary heat
transfer fluids used in nuclear reactors. There is a wide variety – gas, water, light metal, heavy metal and salt:
Water or heavy water must be maintained at very high pressure (1000-2200 psi, 7-15 MPa, 150 atmospheres)
to enable it to function well above 100°C, up to 345°C, as in present reactors. This has a major influence on
reactor engineering. However, supercritical water around 25 MPa can give 45% thermal efficiency – as at some
fossil-fuel power plants today with outlet temperatures of 600°C, and at ultra-supercritical levels (30+ MPa)
50% may be attained.
Water cooling of steam condensers is fairly standard in all power plants, because it works very well, it is
relatively inexpensive, and there is a huge experience base. Water (at 75 atm pressure) has good heat
capacity – about 4000 kJ/m3 – so is a lot more effective than gas for removing heat, though its thermal
conductivity is less than liquid alternatives.
Helium must be used at similar pressure (1000-2000 psi, 7-14 MPa) to maintain sufficient density for efficient
operation. However, even at 75 atm pressure its heat capacity is only about 20 kJ/m3. Again, there are
engineering implications from the high pressure required, but it can be used in the Brayton cycle to drive a
turbine directly.
Carbon dioxide was used in early British reactors, and their current AGRs which operate at much higher
temperatures than light water reactors. It is denser than helium and thus likely to give better thermal conversion
efficiency. It also leaks less readily than helium. There is now interest in supercritical CO2 for the Brayton
cycle.
Sodium, as normally used in fast neutron reactors at around 550ºC, melts at 98°C and boils at 883°C at
atmospheric pressure, so despite the need to keep it dry the engineering required to contain it is relatively
modest. It has high thermal conductivity and high heat capacity – about 1000 kJ/m3 at 2 atm pressure. However,
normally water/steam is used in the secondary circuit to drive a turbine (Rankine cycle) at lower thermal
efficiency than the Brayton cycle. In some designs, sodium is in a secondary circuit to steam generators.
Sodium does not corrode the metals used in the fuel cladding or primary circuit, nor the fuel itself if there is
cladding damage, but it is very reactive generally. In particular it reacts exothermically with water or steam to
liberate hydrogen. It burns in air, but much less vigorously. Sodium has a low neutron capture cross-section, but
it is enough for some Na-23 to become Na-24, which is a beta-emitter and very gamma-active with 15-hour
half-life, so some shielding is required. In a large reactor, with about 5000 t sodium per GWe, Na-24 activity
reaches an equilibrium level of nearly 1 TBq/kg – a large radioactive inventory. If a reactor needs to be shut
down frequently, NaK eutectic which is liquid at room temperature (about 13°C) may be used as coolant, but
the potassium is pyrophoric, which increases the hazard. Sodium is about six times more transparent to neutrons
than lead.
Lead or lead-bismuth eutectic in fast neutron reactors are capable of higher temperature operation at
atmospheric pressure. They are transparent to neutrons, aiding efficiency due to greater spacing between fuel
pins which then allows coolant flow by convection for decay heat removal, and since they do not react with
water the heat exchanger interface is safer. They do not burn when exposed to air. However, they are corrosive
of fuel cladding and steels, which originally limited temperatures to 550°C. With today's materials 650°C can
be reached, and in future 800°C is envisaged with the second stage of Generation IV development, using oxide
dispersion-strengthened steels. Lead and Pb-Bi have much higher thermal conductivity than water, but lower
than sodium. Westinghouse is developing a lead-cooled fast reactor concept and LeadCold in Canada is
developing one also, using novel aluminium-steel alloys that are highly corrosion-resistant to 450°C. The
compound Ti3SiC2 (titanium silicon carbide) is suggested for primary circuits, resisting corrosion.
While lead has limited activation from neutrons, a problem with Pb-Bi is that it yields toxic polonium (Po-210)
activation product, an alpha-emitter with a half-life of 138 days. Pb-Bi melts at a relatively low 125°C (hence
eutectic) and boils at 1670°C, Pb melts at 327°C and boils at 1737°C but is very much more abundant and
cheaper to produce than bismuth, hence is envisaged for large-scale use in the future, though freezing must be
prevented. The development of nuclear power based on Pb-Bi cooled fast neutron reactors is likely to be limited
to a total of 50-100 GWe, basically for small reactors in remote places. In 1998 Russia declassified a lot of
research information derived from its experience with submarine reactors, and US interest in using Pb generally
or Pb-Bi for small reactors has increased subsequently. The Gen4 Module (Hyperion) reactor will use lead-
bismuth eutectic which is 45% Pb, 55% Bi. A secondary circuit generating steam is likely.
For details of lead-bismuth eutectic coolants, see the 2013 IAEA report in References.
SALT: Fluoride salts boil at around 1400°C at atmospheric pressure, so allow several options for use of the
heat, including using helium in a secondary Brayton cycle circuit with thermal efficiencies of 48% at 750°C to
59% at 1000°C, for manufacture of hydrogen. Fluoride salts have a very high boiling temperature, very low
vapor pressure even at red heat, very high volumetric heat capacity (4670 kJ/m3 for FLiBe, higher than water at
75 atm pressure), good heat transfer properties, low neutron absorbtion, good neutron moderation capability, are
not damaged by radiation, are chemically very stable so absorb all fission products well and do not react
violently with air or water, are compatible with graphite, and some are also inert to some common structural
metals. Some gamma-active F-20 is formed by neutron capture, but has very short half-life (11 seconds).
Lithium-beryllium fluoride Li2BeF4 (FLiBe) salt is a eutectic version of LiF (2LiF + BeF2) which solidifies at
459°C and boils at 1430°C. It is favoured in MSR and AHTR/FHR primary cooling and when uncontaminated
has a low corrosion effect. LiF without the toxic beryllium solidifies at about 500°C and boils at about 1200°C.
FLiNaK (LiF-NaF-KF) is also eutectic and solidifies at 454°C and boils at 1570°C. It has a higher neutron
cross-section than FLiBe or LiF but can be used intermediate cooling loops.
Chloride salts have advantages in fast-spectrum molten salt reactors, having higher solubility for actinides than
fluorides. While NaCl has good nuclear, chemical and physical properties its high melting point means it needs
to be blended with MgCl2 or CaCl2, the former being preferred in eutectic, and allowing the addition of actinide
trichlorides. The major isotope of chlorine, Cl-35 gives rise to Cl-36 as an activation product – a long-lived
energetic beta source, so Cl-37 is much preferable in a reactor. In thermal reactors, chlorides are only candidates
for secondary cooling loops.
All low-pressure liquid coolants allow all their heat to be delivered at high temperatures, since the temperature
drop in heat exchangers is less than with gas coolants. Also, with a good margin between operating and boiling
temperatures, passive cooling for decay heat is readily achieved. Since heat exchangers do leak to some small
extent, having incompatible primary and secondary coolants can be a problem. The less pressure difference
across the heat exchanger, the less is the problem.
The removal of passive decay heat is a vital feature of primary cooling systems, beyond heat transfer to do
work. When the fission process stops, fission product decay continues and a substantial amount of heat is added
to the core. At the moment of shutdown, this is about 6.5% of the full power level, but after an hour it drops to
about 1.5% as the short-lived fission products decay. After a day, the decay heat falls to 0.4%, and after a week
it will be only 0.2%. This heat could melt the core of a light water reactor unless it is reliably dissipated, as
shown in 2011 at Fukushima, where about 1.5% of the heat was being generated when the tsunami disabled the
cooling. In passive systems, some kind of convection flow is relied upon. Decay heat removal is more of a
problem in gas-cooled reactors due to low thermal inertia, and this has limited the size of individual units.
The top AHTR/FHR line is potential, lower one practical today. See also paper on Cooling Power Plants.
There is some radioactivity in the cooling water flowing through the core of a water-cooled reactor, due mainly
to the activation product nitrogen-16, formed by neutron capture from oxygen. N-16 has a half-life on only 7
seconds but produces high-energy gamma radiation during decay. It is the reason that access to a BWR turbine
hall is restricted during actual operation.

NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR PROCESS HEAT

Producing steam to drive a turbine and generator is relatively easy, and a light water reactor running at 350°C
does this readily. As the above section and Figure show, other types of reactor are required for higher
temperatures. A 2010 US Department of Energy document quotes 500°C for a liquid metal cooled reactor
(FNR), 860°C for a molten salt reactor (MSR), and 950°C for a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR).
Lower-temperature reactors can be used with supplemental gas heating to reach higher temperatures, though
employing an LWR would not be practical or economic. The DOE said that high reactor outlet temperatures in
the range 750 to 950°C were required to satisfy all end user requirements evaluated to date for the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant.

PRIMITIVE REACTORS
The world's oldest known nuclear reactors operated at what is now Oklo in Gabon, West Africa. About 2 billion
years ago, at least 16 natural nuclear reactors achieved criticality in a high-grade deposit of uranium ore (a
17th was in the Bangombe deposit 30 km away). Each operated intermittently at about 20 kW thermal, the
reaction ceasing whenever the water turned to steam so that it ceased to function as moderator. At that time the
concentration of U-235 in all natural uranium was about 3.6% instead of 0.7% as at present. (U-235 decays
much faster than U-238, whose half-life is about the same as the age of the Earth. When the Earth was formed
U-235 was about 30% of uranium.) These natural chain reactions started spontaneously and continued overall
for one or two million years before finally dying away. It appears that each reactor operated in pulses of about
30 minutes. It is estimated that about 130 TWh of heat was produced. (The reactors were discovered when
assays of mined uranium showed only 0.717% U-235 instead of 0.720% as everywhere else on the planet.
Further investigation identified particular reactor zones with U-235 levels down to 0.44%. There were also
significant concentrations of decay nuclides from fission products of both uranium and plutonium.)
During this long reaction period about 5.4 tonnes of fission products as well as up to two tonnes of plutonium
together with other transuranic elements were generated in the orebody. The initial radioactive products have
long since decayed into stable elements but close study of the amount and location of these has shown that there
was little movement of radioactive wastes during and after the nuclear reactions. Plutonium and the other
transuranics remained immobile.

ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

 Improved designs of nuclear power reactors are constantly being developed internationally.
 The first so-called Generation III advanced reactors have been operating in Japan since 1996. These have
now evolved further.
 Newer advanced reactors now being built have simpler designs which are intended to reduce capital cost.
They are more fuel efficient and are inherently safer.
 Many new designs are small – up to 300 MWe. These are described in a separate information paper.
Over 85% of the world's nuclear electricity is generated by reactors derived from designs originally developed
for naval use. These and other nuclear power units now operating have been found to be safe and reliable, but
they are being superseded by better designs.
Reactor suppliers in North America, Japan, Europe, Russia, China and elsewhere have a dozen new nuclear
reactor designs at advanced stages of planning or under construction, while others are at a research and
development stage. Fourth-generation reactors are at the R&D or concept stage.
So-called third-generation reactors have:

 A more standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce
construction time.
 A simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational
upsets.
 Higher availability and longer operating life – typically 60 years.
 Further reduced possibility of core melt accidents.*
 Substantial grace period, so that following shutdown the plant requires no active intervention for
(typically) 72 hours.
 Stronger reinforcement against aircraft impact than earlier designs, to resist radiological release.
 Higher burn-up to use fuel more fully and efficiently, and reduce the amount of waste.
 Greater use of burnable absorbers ('poisons') to extend fuel life.

* The US NRC requirement for calculated core damage frequency (CDF) is 1x10-4, most current US plants have about 5x10-5 and
Generation III plants are about ten times better than this. The IAEA safety target for future plants is 1x10 -5. Calculated large release
frequency (for radioactivity) is generally about ten times less than CDF.

The greatest departure from most designs now in operation is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety
features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of
malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.
* Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some
engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. They function without operator control and despite any loss of
auxiliary power. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as
convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components, but these terms are not properly
used to characterise whole reactors.

Another departure is that most will be designed for load-following. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since
2001 specify that new reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity.
While most French reactors are operated in that mode to some extent, the EPR design has better capabilities. It
will be able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per
minute up to 60% output and at 5% of rated output per minute up to full rated power. This means that
potentially the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes, though this may be at
some expense of wear and tear.
A feature of some new designs is modular construction. The means that many small components are assembled
in a factory environment (offsite or onsite) into structural modules weighing up to 1000 tonnes, and these can be
hoisted into place. Construction is speeded up.
Many are larger than predecessors. Increasingly they involve international collaboration.
However, certification of designs is on a national basis, and is safety-based
Another feature of some new designs is modular construction. Large structural and mechanical sections of the
plant of up to 1000 tonnes each are manufactured in factories or on site adjacent to the plant and lifted into
place, potentially speeding construction.
A contrast between the 1188 MWe Westinghouse reactor at Sizewell B in the UK and the modern
Westinghouse AP1000 of similar power illustrates the evolution from 1970-80 types. First, the AP1000
footprint is very much smaller – about one-quarter the size, secondly the concrete and steel requirements are
lower by a factor of five*, and thirdly it has modular construction. A single unit has 149 structural modules
broadly of five kinds, and 198 mechanical modules of four kinds: equipment, piping & valve, commodity, and
standard service modules. These comprise one-third of all construction and can be built offsite in parallel with
the onsite construction.
* Sizewell B: 520,000 m3 concrete (438 m3/MWe), 65,000 t rebar (55 t/MWe); 
AP1000: <100,000 m3 concrete (90 m3/MWe, <12,000 t rebar (11 t/MWe).

At Sanmen and Haiyang in China, where the first AP1000 units were grid connected in August 2018, the first
module lifted into place weighed 840 tonnes. More than 50 other modules used in the reactors' construction
weigh more than 100 tonnes, while 18 weight in excess of 500 tonnes.

US, EU AND UK DESIGN CERTIFICATION

In the USA, the federal Department of Energy (DOE) and the commercial nuclear industry in the 1990s
developed four advanced reactor types. Two of them fell into the category of large 'evolutionary' designs which
build directly on the experience of operating light water reactors in the USA, Japan and Western Europe. These
reactors are in the 1300 megawatt range.
One was an advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) derived from a General Electric design and then promoted
both by GE Hitachi and Toshiba as a proven design, which is in service in Japan and was being built in
Taiwan. Four are planned in the UK.
The other type, System 80+, was an advanced pressurized water reactor, which was ready for commercialization
but was never promoted for sale. It was the basis of the Korean Next Generation Reactor program and many of
its design features are incorporated into eight South Korean reactors, specifically the APR1400, which is
operating in South Korea and being built in South Korea and the UAE and marketed worldwide.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave final design certification for both in May 1997, noting
that they exceeded NRC "safety goals by several orders of magnitude". The ABWR has also been certified as
meeting European utility requirements for advanced reactors and is undergoing the generic design assessment
process in the UK.
Another, more innovative US advanced reactor was smaller – 600 MWe – and had passive safety features (its
projected core damage frequency is more than 100 times less than NRC requirements). The
Westinghouse AP600 gained NRC final design certification in 1999 (AP = Advanced Passive).
These NRC approvals were the first such generic certifications to be issued and were valid for 15 years. As a
result of an exhaustive public process, safety issues within the scope of the certified designs were fully resolved
and hence are not open to legal challenge during licensing for particular plants. Using such certified designs, US
utilities are able to obtain a single NRC license to both construct and operate a reactor before construction
begins.
Both GE Hitachi and Toshiba in 2010 submitted separate applications to renew the US design certification for
their respective versions of the ABWR (Toshiba's incorporating design changes already submitted to the NRC
in connection with the South Texas Project combined construction and operating license application). The
Japanese version of it differs in allowing modular construction, so is not identical to that licensed in the USA. In
mid-2016 Toshiba withdrew its design certification renewal application, and in August 2017 GE Hitachi put its
review by the NRC on hold.
Separate from the NRC process and beyond its immediate requirements, the US nuclear industry selected one
standardized design in each category – the large ABWR and the medium-sized AP600, for detailed first-of-a-
kind engineering (FOAKE) work. The US$ 200 million program was half funded by DOE and meant that
prospective buyers then had fuller information on construction costs and schedules.
The 1100 MWe-class Westinghouse AP1000, scaled-up from the AP600, received final design certification
from the NRC in December 2005 – the first Generation III+ type to do so. It represented the culmination of a
1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. In May 2007 Westinghouse applied for UK
generic design assessment (GDA, pre-licensing approval) based on the NRC design certification, and
expressing its policy of global standardization. The application was supported by European utilities, and was
granted in 2017.
Overnight capital costs were projected to be very competitive with older designs, and modular design is
expected to reduce construction time eventually to 36 months. The AP1000 generating costs are also expected
to be very competitive and it has a 60-year operating life. It is being built in China (four units under
construction, with many more to follow) and in the USA (initially four units at two sites). It is planned for
building in the UK. It is capable of running on a full MOX core if required.
In February 2008 the NRC accepted an application from Westinghouse to amend the AP1000 design, and this
review was completed with revised design certification in December 2011. The NRC chairman said that the
revised AP1000 design is one that seems to most fully meet the expectations of the commission’s policy
statement on advanced reactors. "The design provides enhanced safety margins through use of simplified,
inherent, passive or other innovative safety and security functions, and also has been assessed to ensure it could
withstand damage from an aircraft impact without significant release of radioactive materials." This design
change increased the capital cost.
In December 2016 Westinghouse requested the NRC to extend the design certification of its AP1000 reactor for
five years from 2021 to 2026. In the light of operational experience of the first few reactors it would then apply
for renewal of US design certification.
The ESBWR from GE Hitachi received US design certification in September 2014.
The South Korean APR1400 received US design certification in August 2019.
In January 2017 NuScale submitted its small modular reactor design to the NRC for design certification. The
application consisted of nearly 12,000 pages of technical information. The certification process is expected to
take 40 months.
Longer term, the NRC expected to review the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) for the USA essentially
the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) among the Generation IV designs. It will also focus on small
reactor designs.
In Europe there are moves towards harmonized requirements for licensing. Here, since 1991, reactors may also
be certified according to compliance with European Utility Requirements (EUR) of 12 generating companies,
which have stringent safety criteria. The EUR are essentially a utilities' wish list of some 5000 items needed for
new nuclear plants. Designs certified as complying with EUR include Westinghouse's AP1000, Gidropress's
AES-92 and VVER-TOI, Areva's EPR, Mitsubishi’s EU-APWR and in 2017 KHNP's APR1400 (EU-APR).
GE's ABWR, Areva's Kerena, and Westinghouse's BWR 90 also have some measure of EUR approval. China's
Hualong One are under review.
European regulators are increasingly requiring large new reactors to have some kind of core catcher or similar
device, so that in a full core-melt accident there is enhanced provision for cooling the bottom of the reactor
pressure vessel or simply catching any material that might melt through it. The EPR and VVER-1200 have
core-catchers under the pressure vessel, the AP1000 and APWR have provision for enhanced water cooling.
The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) undertakes generic design assessment (GDA) of nuclear
reactors. A GDA of each type can then be followed by site- and operator-specific licensing. ONR made initial
assessments of four designs which were submitted in 2007: UK EPR for Areva, AP1000 for Westinghouse,
ESBWR for GE Hitachi, and ACR-1000 for AECL in Canada. The latter two were withdrawn from the process
in 2008 and in 2013 the GE Hitachi ABWR was added. The ONR and Environment Agency jointly issued
design acceptance confirmations (DAC), and statements on design acceptability (SODA) for the EPR December
2012, and for the AP1000 in March 2017. In 2013 Hitachi-GE applied for UK generic design approval for the
ABWR, and after some design changes this is likely to be granted at the end of 2017.
As the GDA for the EPR design proceeded, issues arose which were in common with new capacity being built
elsewhere, particularly the EPR units in Finland and France. This led to international collaboration and a joint
regulatory statement on the EPR instrumentation and control among ONR, US NRC, France's ASN and
Finland's STUK. More broadly it relates to the Multinational Design Evaluation Program and will help improve
the harmonization of regulatory requirements internationally.
In 2012 Rosatom announced that it intended to apply for design certification for its VVER-TOI reactor design
of 1200 MWe, with a view to Rusatom Overseas building them in UK.
In 2016 China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) applied for GDA for the 1150 MWe Hualong One
(HPR1000) reactor design, with a view to building it at Bradwell. General Nuclear Systems, a joint venture with
EDF holding 33.5% and CGN 66.5%, was formed for progressing the GDA, which commenced in January 2017
and moved to its fourth and final stage in February 2020.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a further GDA task impending for the ONR.

JOINT INITIATIVES AND COLLABORATION

Three major international initiatives have been launched to define future reactor and fuel cycle technology,
mostly looking further ahead than the main subjects of this paper:
The Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP) was launched in 2006 by the US NRC and the French
Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) to develop innovative approaches to leverage the resources and knowledge of
national regulatory authorities reviewing new reactor designs. It is led by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and involves the IAEA. Ultimately it aims to develop multinational regulatory standards for design of Gen IV
reactors. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed a three-stage process culminating in
international design certification for new reactor types, notably Generation IV types. Twelve countries are
involved so far: Canada, China, Finland, France, India (from 2012), Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa,
Sweden (from 2013), UK, USA, and others which have or are likely to have firm commitments to building new
nuclear plants may be admitted – the UAE is an associate member.
The MDEP pools the resources of its member nuclear regulatory authorities for the purpose of: 1) co-operating
on safety reviews of designs of nuclear reactors that are under construction and undergoing licensing in several
countries; and 2) exploring opportunities and potential for harmonization of regulatory requirements and
practices. It also produces reports and guidance documents that are shared internationally beyond the MDEP
membership.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a US-led grouping set up in 2001 which has identified six
reactor concepts for further investigation with a view to commercial deployment by 2030.
The IAEA's International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) is focused more on
developing country needs, and initially involved Russia rather than the USA, though the USA has now joined it.
It is now funded through the IAEA budget.
At the commercial level, by the end of 2006 three major Western-Japanese alliances had formed in the world
reactor supply market, and since then another has become prominent:
  Areva with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in a major project and subsequently in fuel fabrication.
 General Electric with Hitachi as a close relationship: GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), 60% GE; and
Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy based in Japan, 80% Hitachi.
 Westinghouse had become a 77%-owned subsidiary of Toshiba (with The Shaw Group 20%). Toshiba is
now an 87% owner, having sold 10% to Kazatomprom and bought the 20% share.

Ten years later, in 2016, Westinghouse has collaborated with China’s State Nuclear Power Technology
Corporation (SNPTC) in developing the AP1000 design to a CAP1000 and also a larger CAP-1400, and China
is gaining a high profile as reactor vendor alongside Russia’s Rosatom. Areva was substantially restructured due
to huge cost overruns on two EPR projects, and Electricite de France (EDF) took over the nuclear power plant
part. Japanese vendors are overshadowed by the after-effects of the Fukushima accident. South Korea’s KEPCO
through KHNP is building its APR1400 on budget and schedule in the United Arab Emirates, but faces new
political challenges at home.
There have also been a number of other international collaborative arrangements initiated among reactor
vendors and designers, but it remains to be seen which will be most significant.

WHO IS MARKETING WHAT?

Apart from small reactors, the following are the main models actively being marketed:

 EDF (Framatome): EPR2, Atmea1, Kerena

 Westinghouse: AP1000
 GE Hitachi: ABWR, ESBWR, PRISM
 KHNP: APR1400, EU-APR
 Mitsubishi: APWR, Atmea1
 Rosatom: AES-92, AES-2006, VVER-TOI
 SNC-Lavalin: EC6
 CNNC & CGN: Hualong One
 SNPTC: CAP1400

Advanced power reactors operational

LIGHT WATER REACTORS

(Power reactors moderated and cooled by water)

EPR

Areva NP (formerly Framatome ANP) developed a large (4590 MWt, typically 1750 MWe gross and 1630
MWe net) European pressurised water reactor (EPR), which was accepted in mid-1995 as the new standard
design for France and received French design approval in 2004. It is a four-loop design derived from the
German Konvoi types with features from the French N4, and was expected to provide power about 10% cheaper
than the N4. It will operate flexibly to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and a high thermal
efficiency, of 37%, and net efficiency of 36%. It is capable of using a full core load of MOX. Availability is
expected to be 92% over a 60-year service life.
It has double containment with four separate, redundant active safety systems, and boasts a core catcher under
the pressure vessel. The safety systems are physically separated through four ancillary buildings on the same
concrete raft, and two of them are aircraft crash protected. The primary diesel generators have fuel for 72 hours,
the secondary back-up ones for 24 hours, and tertiary battery back-up lasts 12 hours. It is designed to withstand
seismic ground acceleration of 600 Gal without safety impairment.
The first EPR unit commenced construction at Olkiluoto in Finland, the second at Flamanville in France, the
third European one was to be at Penly in France. However the first EPR to be grid connected was at Taishan in
China. It entered commercial operation at the end of 2018. The EPR has undergone UK generic design
assessment, with some significant changes to instrumentation and control systems being agreed with other
national regulators, and two are being built at Hinkley Point C in the UK.
Questions arose regarding the steel quality in the top and bottom reactor pressure vessel heads for Flamanville,
forged by Areva’s Creusot Forge plant. The pressure vessel for Olkiluoto was forged in Japan, and those for
Taishan by MHI and Dongfang Electric.
A US version, the US-EPR quoted as 1710 MWe gross and about 1580 MWe net, was submitted for US design
certification in December 2007, but this process is suspended. The first unit (with 80% US content) was
expected to be grid connected by 2020. It is now known as the Evolutionary PWR (EPR). Much of the one
million man-hours of work involved in developing this US EPR was said to be making the necessary changes to
output electricity at 60 Hz instead of the original design's 50 Hz. The main development of the type was to be
through UniStar Nuclear Energy.
Areva NP is working with EdF on a ‘new model’ EPR, the EPR NM or EPR2, “offering the same
characteristics” as the EPR but with simplified construction and significant cost reduction – about 30%. The
basic design was to be completed in 2020, and in mid-2019 the French regulator ASN said it was happy with
most aspects of the design. Emergency core cooling is significantly different to the EPR. EdF said that it, not
the complex EPR being built at Flamanville, would be the model that replaced the French fleet from the late
2020s. Poland appears to be a candidate for the demonstration plant.

AP1000

The Westinghouse AP1000 is a two-loop PWR which has evolved from the smaller AP600, one of the first new
reactor designs certified by the US NRC. Simplification was a major design objective of the AP1000, in overall
safety systems, normal operating systems, the control room, construction techniques, and instrumentation and
control systems provide cost savings with improved safety margins. It has a core cooling system including
passive residual heat removal by convection, improved containment isolation, passive containment cooling
system to the atmosphere and in-vessel retention of core damage (corium) with water cooling around it. No
safety-related pumps or ventilation systems are needed. The AP1000 gained US design certification in 2005,
and UK generic design assessment approval in 2017. However, the structural design for the USA and UK was
significantly modified from 2008 to withstand aircraft impact.
It has been built in China at Sanmen and Haiyang, and is under construction at Vogtle in the USA. The units are
being assembled from modules. It is 1250 MWe gross and 1110-1117 MWe net in the USA, 1157 or 1170
MWe net in China (3415 MWt). Westinghouse earlier claimed a 36-month construction time to fuel loading.
The first ones being built in China were on a 57-month schedule to grid connection, but took about 110 months.
Progress was delayed, particularly by the need to re-engineer the 91-tonne coolant pumps, of which each rector
has four. After the first four units in China, the design is known as the CAP1000 there.

CAP1400

Westinghouse has been working with SNPTC and SNERDI in China to develop jointly a passively safe 1500
MWe (4040 MWt) two-loop design from the AP1000, the CAP1400, with 193 fuel assemblies and improved
steam generators, operating at 323°C outlet temperature, 60-year design lifetime, and 72-hour non-intervention
period in event of accident. Average discharge burn-up is about 50 GWd/t, maximum 59.5 GWd/t. Operation
flexibility includes extra control rods for MOX capability, 18 to 24-month cycle, and load-following. Seismic
rating is 300 gal. The CAP1400 project may extend to a larger, three-loop CAP1700 or CAP2100 design if the
passive cooling system can be scaled to that level. Westinghouse has agreed that SNPTC will own the
intellectual property rights for any AP1000 derivatives over 1350 MWe. Construction of the first unit at
Shidaowan is expected to start about the end of 2017.

ABWR

The advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) is derived from a General Electric design in collaboration with
Toshiba. Two examples built by Hitachi and two by Toshiba have been in commercial operation in Japan (1315
MWe net), with another two under construction there and two in Taiwan. More are planned in Japan and four
are planned in the UK.
The ABWR has been offered in slightly different versions by GE Hitachi, Hitachi-GE and Toshiba, so that
'ABWR' is now a generic term. It is basically a 1380 MWe (gross) unit (3926 MWt in Toshiba version), though
GE Hitachi quote 1350-1600 MWe net. Toshiba outlines development from its 1400 MWe class to a 1500-1600
MWe class unit (4300 MWt). Tepco was funding the design of a next generation BWR, and the ABWR-II is
quoted as 1717 MWe.
Toshiba was promoting its EU-ABWR of 1600 MWe with core catcher and filtered vent, developed with
Westinghouse Sweden. The Hitachi UK-ABWR may have similar features but be similar size to Japanese units.
The first four ABWRs were each built in 39-43 months on a single-shift basis. Though GE and Hitachi have
subsequently joined up, Toshiba retains some rights over the design, as does Tepco. The design can run on full-
core mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, as for the Ohma plant being built in Japan. Design life is 60 years. Unlike
previous BWRs in Japan the external recirculation loop and internal jet pumps are replaced by coolant pumps
mounted at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. Safety systems are active – GEH describes it as “the
pinnacle of the evolution of active safety.”
Both Toshiba and GE Hitachi have applied separately to the NRC for design certification renewal, though these
are respectively withdrawn or on hold. The initial certification in 1997 was for 15 years and in 2011 the NRC
certified for GE Hitachi an evolved version which allows for aircraft impacts. UK generic design assessment
approval for Hitachi's version of the ABWR is expected at the end of 2017. 
GE Hitachi was also designing a 600-800 MWe version of the ABWR, with five instead of ten internal coolant
pumps, aiming at Southeast Asia. In addition, a 400 MWe version was envisaged.

ESBWR

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's ESBWR is an improved design "evolved from the ABWR" but that utilizes
passive safety features including natural circulation principles. It was developed from a predecessor design, the
SBWR at 670 MWe. GEH says it is safer and more efficient than earlier models, with 25% fewer pumps, valves
and motors, and can maintain cooling for seven days after shutdown with no AC or battery power. The
emergency core cooling system has eliminated the need for pumps, using passive and stored energy. The used
fuel pool is below ground level.
The ESBWR (4500 MWt) will produce approximately 1600 MWe gross, and 1520 MWe net, depending on site
conditions, and has a design life of 60 years. It is more fully known as the Economic Simplified BWR
(ESBWR) and leverages proven technologies from the ABWR. GE Hitachi gained US NRC design certification
for the ESBWR in September 2014, following design approval in March 2011. It was submitted for UK generic
design assessment in 2007, but withdrawn a year later.
GEH is selling this alongside the ABWR, which it characterises as more expensive to build and operate, but
proven. The ESBWR is more innovative, with lower building costs due to modular construction, lower
operating costs, 24-month refuelling cycle and a 60-year operating lifetime. In the USA plans to build as Detroit
Edison’s Fermi 3 and Dominion’s North Anna 3 are not proceeding.

APWR

Mitsubishi's large APWR – advanced PWR of 1538 MWe gross (4451 or 4466 MWt) – was developed in
collaboration with four utilities (Westinghouse was earlier involved). The first two are planned for Tsuruga,
originally to come online from 2016. It is a four-loop design with 257 fuel assemblies and neutron reflector, is
simpler, combines active and passive cooling systems in a double containment, and has over 55 GWd/t fuel
burn-up. It is the basis for the next generation of Japanese PWRs. The planned APWR+ is 1750 MWe and has
full-core MOX capability.
The US-APWR is 4451 MWt, about 1600 MWe net, due to longer (4.3m instead of 3.7m) fuel assemblies,
higher burn-up (62 GWd/t) and higher thermal efficiency (37%) (2013 company description). It has 24-month
refuelling cycle. Its emergency core cooling system (ECCS) has four independent trains, and its outer walls and
roof are 1.8 m thick. US design certification application was in January 2008 with certification expected in
2016, but halted. In March 2008 MHI submitted the same design for EUR (European Utility Requirements)
certification, as the EU-APWR, and this certification of compliance was granted in October 2014. MHI planned
to join with Iberdrola Engineering & Construction in bidding for sales of this in Europe. Iberdrola would be
responsible for building the plants.
The Japanese government was expected to provide financial support for US licensing of the US-APWR.
Washington Group International was to be involved in US developments with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
(MHI). The US-APWR was selected by Luminant for Comanche Peak, Texas, a merchant plant.

APR1400, EU-APR, APR+, APR1000

South Korea's APR1400 advanced PWR design has evolved from the US System 80+ with enhanced safety and
seismic robustness and was earlier known as the Korean Next Generation Reactor. Design certification by the
Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety was awarded in May 2003. It is 1455 MWe gross in Korean conditions
according to an IAEA status report, 1350-1400 MWe net (3983 - nominal 4000 MWt) with two-loop primary
circuit. The first of these are operating in Korea – Shin Kori 3&4 – with Shin Hanul 1&2 under construction. It
was chosen for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) nuclear programme on the basis of cost and reliable building
schedule, and four units are under construction there, with the first expected online in 2020.
Fuel in 241 fuel assemblies has burnable poison and will have up to 55 GWd/t burn-up, refuelling cycle around
18 months, outlet temperature 324ºC. It is designed "not only for the base-load full power operation but also for
a part load operation such as the load following operation. A standard 100-50-100% daily load follow operation
has been considered in the reactor core design as well as in the plant control systems." Ramp up and down
between 100% and 50% takes two hours. Plant operating lifetime is 60 years, seismic design basis is 300 Gal. A
low-speed (1800 rpm) turbine is used. An application for US design certification was lodged in 2013 and a
revised version accepted in March 2015. The NRC confirmed its safety in September 2018 and design
certification was approved in May 2019 and formally awarded in August.
Based on this, KOPEC has developed an EU version (APR1400-EUR or EU-APR) with double containment
and core-catcher which was given EUR approval in October 2017. It is 4000 MWt, 1520 MWe gross, with a
design lifetime of 60 years and 250 Gal seismic rating.
KHNP is also developing a more advanced 4308 MWt, 1560 MWe (gross) version of the APR1400, the APR+,
which gained design approval from NSSC in August 2014. It was “developed with original domestic
technology”, up to 100% localized, over seven years since 2007, with export markets in view. It has modular
construction which is expected to give 36-month construction time instead of 52 months for the APR1400. It
has 257 fuel assemblies of a new design, 18- to 24-month fuel cycle, and passive decay heat removal. Also it is
more highly reinforced against aircraft impact than any earlier designs. Seismic rating is 300 Gal.
In addition some of the APR features are being incorporated into an exportable APR-1000 intended for
overseas markets, notably Middle East and Southeast Asia, and will be able to operate with an ultimate heat
sink of 40°C, instead of 35°C for the OPR-1000. Improved safety and performance will raise the capital cost
above that of the OPR, but it this will be offset by reduced construction time (40 months instead of 46) due to
modular construction.

ATMEA1

The Atmea1 has been developed by the Atmea joint venture established in 2007 by Areva NP and Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries to produce an evolutionary 1100-1150 MWe net (3150 MWt) three-loop PWR using the same
steam generators as EPR. This has 37% net thermal efficiency, 157 fuel assemblies 4.2 m long, 60-year
operating lifetime, and the capacity to use mixed-oxide fuel for full core load. Fuel cycle is flexible 12 to 24
months with short refuelling outage and the reactor has load-following (100-25% range) and frequency control
capability. The first units are likely to be built at Sinop in Turkey.
Following an 18-month review, the French regulator ASN approved the general design in February 2012. The
reactor is regarded as mid-sized relative to other modern designs and will be marketed primarily to countries
embarking upon nuclear power programs. It has three active and passive redundant safety systems and an
additional backup cooling chain, similar to EPR. It has a core-catcher, and is available for high-seismic sites.
Canadian design certification is under way.

KERENA

Together with German utilities and safety authorities, Areva NP has also developed another evolutionary
design, the Kerena, a 1290 MWe gross, 1250 MWe net (3370 MWt) BWR with 60-year design life formerly
known as SWR 1000, The design, based on the Gundremmingen plant built by Siemens, was completed in 1999
and US certification was sought, but then deferred. It has not yet been submitted for certification anywhere, but
is otherwise ready for commercial deployment.
It has two redundant active safety systems and two passive safety systems, including a core-catcher, similar to
EPR. The reactor is simpler overall and uses high-burnup fuels (to 65 GWd/t) enriched to 3.54%, giving it
refuelling intervals of up to 24 months. It can take a 50% MOX load, and uses flow variation to improve fuel
usage. It has 37% net efficiency and can load-follow down to 70% using recirculation pumps only, and down to
40% with control rods.

AES-92, V-392

Gidropress late-model VVER-1000 units with enhanced safety (AES-92 & -91 power plants) have been built in
India and China. Two more (V466B variant) were planned for Belene in Bulgaria. The AES-92 is certified as
meeting EUR, and its V-392 reactor is considered state of the art. They have four coolant loops, 163 fuel
assemblies, and are rated 3000 MWt.

AES-2006, MIR-1200

A third-generation standardised VVER-1200 (V-392M and V-491) reactor of 1198 MWe gross (with cool
water) and 3212 MWt is in the AES-2006 plant. It is an evolutionary development of the well-proven VVER-
1000 in the AES-92 and AES-91 plants, with longer life (60 years for non-replaceable equipment), greater
power, and greater efficiency (34.8% net instead of 31.6%) and 60 GWd/t burn-up. Cogeneration heat supply
capacity is 300 MWt. It retains four coolant loops and has 163 FA-2 fuel assemblies, each with 534 kg of
UO2 fuel enriched to 4.95%. Core outlet temperature is 329°C.
The lead units are being built at Novovoronezh II (V-392M) and Leningrad II (V-491), the first one starting
operation in 2016. The Novovoronezh units provide 1114 MWe net each, and the Leningrad II units 1085 MWe
net each. Two steam turbines are offered: Power Machines (Silmash) full-speed; and Alstom Arabelle half-
speed, as proposed for MIR-1200 and Hanhikivi in Finland.
An AES-2006 plant will consist of two of these OKB Gidropress reactor units expected to run for 60 years with
capacity factor of 90%. Overnight capital cost was said to be US$ 1200/kW (though the first contract was about
$2100/kW) and serial construction time 54 months. They have enhanced safety including that related to
earthquakes and aircraft impact (V-392M especially) with some passive safety features, double containment,
and core-catcher. Planned for Akkuyu in Turkey (V-509).
While Gidropress is responsible for the actual 1200 MWe reactor, Moscow AEP and Atomproekt St Petersburg
are going different ways on the cooling systems, and the V-392M version is the basis of the VVER-TOI.
Passive safety systems prevail in Moscow's V-392M design, while St Petersburg's V-491 design focuses on
active safety systems based on the Tianwan V-428 design. In both, long-term decay heat removal does not rely
on electrical power or ultimate heat sink. (Details in the information paper on Nuclear Power in Russia.)
Atomenergoproekt says that the AES-2006 conforms to both Russian standards and European Utilities
Requirements (EUR). In Europe the V-491 technology is being called the Europe-tailored reactor design, MIR-
1200 (Modernised International Reactor) or AES-2006E, with some Czech involvement. Those bid for Temelin
are quoted as 1158 MWe gross,1078 MWe net. That for Hanhikivi is 1250 MWe gross, due to cold water.

VVER-TOI

In 2010 Atomenergoproekt announced the VVER-TOI (typical optimised, with enhanced information) design

based on V-392M. The basic Gidropress reactor is V-510. It has upgraded pressure vessel, increased power to
3300 MWt and 1255 MWe gross (nominally 1300, hence VVER-1300), improved core design still with 163
fuel assemblies to increase cooling reliability, larger steam generators, further development of passive safety
with 72-hour grace period requiring no operator intervention after shutdown, lower construction and operating
costs, and 40-month construction time. It will use a low-speed turbine-generator and can undertake daily load-
following down to 50% of power. The project was initiated in 2009 and the design was completed at the end of
2012. In June 2012 Rosatom said it would apply for design certification in UK through Rusatom Overseas, with
the VVER-TOI version. The first units are planned for Kursk II and Nizhny Novgorod in Russia.
Details of MIR-1200 and VVER-TOI are in the Nuclear Power in Russia information paper.

VVER-600

Gidropress has developed the VVER-600/V-498 for sites such as Kola, where larger units are not required. It is
a two-loop design based on the V-491 St Petersburg version of the VVER-1200 and using the same basic
equipment but without core-catcher (corium retained within RPV). It will have 60-year life and is capable of
load-following. Export potential is anticipated. It supercedes the VVER-640/V-407 design.

HUALONG ONE, HPR1000

In China, there are two indigenous designs based on a French predecessor but developed with modern features.
CNNC developed the ACP1000 design, with 1100 MWe nominal power and load-following capability, and 177
fuel assemblies. In parallel but somewhat ahead, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation, now China
General Nuclear Power (CGN) led the development of the 1100 MWe ACPR-1000, with 157 fuel assemblies
(same as the French M-310 predecessor), and about 30 of these have been built. However, due to rationalisation
over 2011-13, this design has been dropped in favour of the Hualong One, essentially the ACP1000 with some
features from the ACPR.
The Hualong One thus has 177 fuel assemblies 3.66 m long, 18-24 month refuelling interval. It has three
coolant loops delivering 3050 MWt, 1170 MWe gross, 1090 MWe net (CNNC version). It has double
containment and active safety systems with some passive elements, and a 60-year design lifetime. Average
burnup is 45,000 MWd/tU, thermal efficiency is 36%. Seismic shutdown is at 300 gal. Instrumentation and
control systems will be from Areva-Siemens. Estimated cost in China is $3500/kWe. The first units under
construction are Fangchenggang 3&4 (CGN) and Fuqing 5&6 (CNNC). It is also being built in Pakistan.
CNNC and CGN in December 2015 formed a 50-50 joint venture company – Hualong International Nuclear
Power Technology Co – to market it. The version promoted on the international market, is called HPR1000
(Hualong Pressurized Reactor 1000), based on the CGN version, with Fangchenggang as the reference plant. In
October 2015 CGN submitted the HPR1000 for certification of compliance with European Utility Requirements
(EUR).
Fuller details of the situation are in the Nuclear Power in China information paper.

VBER-300

OKBM's VBER-300 PWR is a 295-325 MWe unit (917 MWt) developed from naval power plants and was
originally envisaged in pairs as a floating nuclear power plant. It is designed for 60 year life and 90% capacity
factor. It now planned to develop it as a land-based unit with Kazatomprom, with a view to exports, and the first
unit will be built in Kazakhstan.
The VBER-300 and the similar-sized VK300 are more fully described in the Small Nuclear Power
Reactors information paper.

HEAVY WATER REACTORS

(Moderated and mostly cooled by heavy water)
In Canada, the government-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) had two designs under development
which are based on its reliable CANDU-6 reactors, the most recent of which are operating in China. In 2011 the
reactor division of AECL was sold and became Candu Energy Inc, a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin. One of these
earlier designs continues, with associated fuel cycle innovation. 
The CANDU-9 (925-1300 MWe) was developed from the CANDU-6 also as a single-unit plant. It had flexible
fuel requirements which have been taken forward to the EC6. A two year licensing review of the CANDU-9
design was successfully completed early in 1997, but the design has been shelved.

EC6

Some of the innovation of the CANDU-9, along with experience in building recent Korean and Chinese units,
was then put back into the Enhanced CANDU-6 (EC6). This is to be built as twin units – with power increase to
740-750 MWe gross (690 MWe net, 2084 MWt) and flexible fuel options, plus 4.5 year construction and 60-
year plant life (with mid-life pressure tube replacement). EC6 is presented as a third-generation design based on
Qinshan Phase III in China, and is under consideration for new build in Ontario and overseas. Phase 2 of
CNSC’s vendor pre-project design review was completed in April 2012, with phase 3 on target for 2013.
Versatility of fuel is a claimed feature of the EC6 and its derivatives. As well as natural uranium, it can use
direct recovered/reprocessed uranium (RU) from used PWR fuel, natural uranium equivalent (NUE – DU +
RU), MOX (DU + Pu), fertile fuels such as LEU + thorium and Th with Pu, and closed cycle fuels (Th + U-233
+ Pu). The NUE fuel cycle with full-core NUE is being demonstrated at Qinshan in China in CANDU-6 units*.
There is also a program for the Advanced Fuel Candu Reactor (AFCR) – an adaptation of EC6 – on direct use
of RU, and also LEU + thorium-based CANDU fuel. Finally a CANMOX fuel is proposed with EC6 for
disposal of the UK’s plutonium stock.
* RU with 0.9% U-235 plus DU gives 0.7% NUE, which is burned down to about 0.25% U-235.

The EC6 has design features, notably its automated refuelling, which enable third-party process monitoring in
relation to non-proliferation concerns.

AFCR

The Advanced Fuel CANDU Reactor (AFCR) is a 740 MWe development of the EC6, designed to use recycled
uranium and also thorium-based fuels. It has been developed by Candu Energy with CNNC’s Third Qinshan
Nuclear Power Corp, which plans to convert the two Qinshan CANDU-6 PHWR units to AFCRs. Then new-
build AFCRs are envisaged in China. One AFCR can be fully fuelled by the recycled uranium from four LWRs’
used fuel. Hence deployment of AFCRs will greatly reduce the task of managing used fuel and disposing of
high-level waste, and could reduce China’s fresh uranium requirements. Late in 2014 a joint venture framework
agreement between CNNC and Candu Energy was signed to build AFCR projects domestically and develop
opportunities for them internationally. In September 2016 an agreement among SNC-Lavalin, CNNC and
Shanghai Electric Group was to set up a joint venture in mid-2017 to develop, market and build the AFCR, with
NUE fuel.

AHWR

India is developing the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) as the third stage in its plan to utilise thorium
to fuel its overall nuclear power program. The AHWR is a 300 MWe gross (284 MWe net, 920 MWt) reactor
moderated by heavy water at low pressure. The calandria has about 450 vertical pressure tubes and the coolant
is pressurised light water boiling at 285ºC and circulated by convection. A large heat sink – 'gravity-driven
water pool' – with 7000 cubic metres of water is near the top of the reactor building. Each fuel assembly has 30
Th-U-233 oxide pins and 24 Pu-Th oxide pins around a central rod with burnable absorber. Burn-up of 24
GWd/t is envisaged. It is designed to be self-sustaining in relation to U-233 bred from Th-232 and have a low
Pu inventory and consumption, with slightly negative void coefficient of reactivity. It is designed for 100-year
plant life and is expected to utilise 65% of the energy of the fuel, with two-thirds of that energy coming from
thorium via U-233. A co-located fuel cycle facility is planned, with remote handling for the highly-radioactive
fresh fuel. At the end of 2016 the design was complete and large-scale engineering studies were validating
innovative features of the design. No site or construction schedule had been announced for the demonstration
unit.
Once it is fully operational, each AHWR fuel assembly will have the fuel pins arranged in three concentric
rings:
Inner: 12 pins Th-U-233 with 3.0% U-233.
Intermediate: 18 pins Th-U-233 with 3.75% U-233.
Outer: 24 pins Th-Pu-239 with 3.25% Pu.
The fissile plutonium content will decrease from an initial 75% to 25% at equilibrium discharge burn-up level.
As well as U-233, some U-232 is formed, and the highly gamma-active daughter products of this confer a
substantial proliferation resistance.
In 2009 an export version of this design was announced: the AHWR-LEU. This will use low-enriched uranium
plus thorium as a fuel, dispensing with the plutonium input. About 39% of the power will come from thorium
(via in situ conversion to U-233), and burn-up will be 64 GWd/t. Uranium enrichment level will be 19.75%,
giving 4.21% average fissile content of the U-Th fuel. While designed for closed fuel cycle, this is not required.
Plutonium production will be less than in light water reactors, and the fissile proportion will be less and the Pu-
238 portion three times as high, giving inherent proliferation resistance. The AEC says that "the reactor is
manageable with modest industrial infrastructure within the reach of developing countries."
In the AHWR-LEU, the fuel assemblies will be configured:
Inner ring: 12 pins Th-U with 3.555% U-235,
Intermediate ring: 18 pins Th-U with 4.345% U-235,
Outer ring: 24 pins Th-U with 4.444% U-235.

HIGH-TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTORS

(Graphite-moderated)
These reactors use helium as a coolant at up to 950ºC, which either makes steam conventionally (Rankine
cycle) or directly drives a gas turbine for electricity and a compressor to return the gas to the reactor core
(Brayton cycle). Fuel is in the form of TRISO particles less than a millimetre in diameter. Each has a kernel of
uranium oxycarbide, with the uranium enriched up to 17% U-235. This is surrounded by layers of carbon and
silicon carbide, giving a containment for fission products which is stable to 1600°C or more. These particles
may be arranged: in blocks as hexagonal 'prisms' of graphite, or in billiard ball-sized pebbles of graphite
encased in silicon carbide.

HTR-PM, HTR-PM 600

The first commercial version will be China's HTR-PM, being built at Shidaowan in Shandong province. It has
been developed by Tsinghua University's INET, which is the R&D leader and China Nuclear Engineering &
Construction Group (CNEC), with China Huaneng Group leading the demonstration plant project. This will
have two reactor modules, each of 250 MWt/105 MWe (equivalent), with a single steam generator, and using
8.5% enriched fuel (245,000 elements) giving 90 GWd/t discharge burnup. With an outlet temperature of 750ºC
the pair will produce steam at 566ºC to drive a single steam cycle turbine at about 40% thermal efficiency.
This 210 MWe Shidaowan demonstration plant is to pave the way for commercial 600 MWe reactor units using
the twin reactor modules (3x210 MWe), also using the steam cycle. These are being promoted by CNEC. Plant
life is envisaged as 40 years with 85% load factor.
Fuller descriptions of HTRs is in the Small Nuclear Power Reactors paper.

FAST NEUTRON REACTORS

(Not moderated, cooled by liquid metal)
Fuller description of fast neutron reactors is in that paper.
Several countries have research and development programs for improved fast breeder reactors (FBR), which are
fast neutron reactors (FNR) configured with a conversion or breeding ratio of more than 1 (i.e. more fissile
nuclei are produced than are fissioned). These use the uranium-238 in reactor fuel as well as the fissile U-235
isotope used in most reactors, and can readily use the world’s 1.5 million tonnes of depleted uranium as fuel.
They are now often designed to burn actinides as well.
About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some have supplied
electricity commercially. About 400 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated. Today
Russia and India have FNRs high profile in their nuclear programs, with Japan, China and France also
significant. See also Fast Neutron Reactors paper.
India's 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam is expected to be operating in 2018, fuelled with
uranium-plutonium oxide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs) and with a thorium blanket to
breed fissile U-233. This will take India's ambitious thorium program to stage 2, and set the scene for eventual
full utilisation of the country's abundant thorium to fuel reactors.
The Russian BN-600 fast breeder reactor at Beloyarsk has been supplying electricity to the grid since 1981 and
has the best operating and production record of all Russia's nuclear power units. It uses uranium oxide fuel and
the sodium coolant delivers 550°C at little more than atmospheric pressure. The core is 0.88 metres active
height and 0.75 m diameter. The BN-350 FBR operated in Kazakhstan for 27 years and about half of its output
was used for water desalination. The BN-600 is configured to burn the plutonium from its military stockpiles.

BN-800

The first (and probably only Russian) BN-800, a new more powerful (789 MWe, 880 MWe gross, 2100 MWt)
fast neutron reactor from OKBM with Atomproekt at St Petersburg with improved features, was grid-connected
at Beloyarsk in December 2015. It is designed to have considerable fuel flexibility – U+Pu nitride, MOX, or
metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3, though only 1.0 as configured at Beloyarsk. The core is a similar size
to that of the BN-600. Initially it is being run with one-fifth MOX fuel, but will have a full MOX core from
about 2020. It does not have a breeding blanket, though a version designed for Sanming in China has up to 198
DU fuel elements in a blanket. Its main purpose is to provide operating experience and technological solutions,
especially regarding fuels, that will be applied to the BN-1200. Further details in the information paper on Fast
Neutron Reactors.

BN-1200

The BN-1200 is being designed by OKBM for operation with MOX fuel initially and dense nitride U-Pu fuel
subsequently, in closed fuel cycle. It is significantly different from preceding BN models, and Rosatom plans to
submit the BN-1200 to the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) as a Generation IV design. The BN-1200
has a capacity of 2900 MWt (1220 MWe gross), a 60-year design life, and burn-up of up to 120 GWd/t. The
capital cost is expected to be much the same as that of the VVER-1200. Its breeding ratio is quoted as 1.2 to 1.4,
using oxide or nitride fuel. OKBM envisages about 11 GWe of such plants by 2030, including South Urals
nuclear plant. The detailed design was completed in May 2017, and the first unit is to be built at Beloyarsk
possibly from 2020. This is part of a federal Rosatom program, the Proryv (Breakthrough) Project for large fast
neutron reactors.

BREST

Russia has experimented with several lead-cooled reactor designs, and used lead-bismuth cooling for 40 years
in reactors for its seven Alfa class submarines. Pb-208 (54% of naturally-occurring lead) is transparent to
neutrons. A significant new Russian design from NIKIET is the BREST-300 fast neutron reactor, of 300 MWe
(700 MWt) with lead as the primary coolant, at 540ºC, and supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe
and uses a high-density U+Pu nitride fuel with no requirement for high enrichment levels. No weapons-grade
plutonium can be produced (since there is no uranium blanket – all the breeding occurs in the core. Used fuel
can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site reprocessing and associated facilities. A demonstration unit is planned
at Seversk by 2022, and 1200 MWe (2800 MWt) units are proposed. Both designs have two cooling
loops. BREST-300 has 17.6 tonnes of fuel, BREST-1200 about 60 tonnes. See information paper on Nuclear
Power in Russia for further details.

PRISM

Today's PRISM is a GE Hitachi design for compact modular pool-type reactors with passive cooling for decay
heat removal. After 30 years of development it represents GEH's Generation IV solution to closing the fuel
cycle. Each PRISM Power Block consists of two modules of 840 MWt, 311 MWe each, operating at high
temperature – over 500°C. The pool-type modules below ground level contain the complete primary system
with sodium coolant. PRISM is suited to operation with dry cooling towers due to high thermal efficiency and
small size.
The Pu & DU fuel is metal, and obtained from used light water reactor fuel. However, all transuranic elements
are removed together in the electrometallurgical reprocessing so that fresh fuel has minor actinides with the
plutonium. Fuel stays in the reactor about six years, with one-third removed every two years. Breeding ratio
depends on purpose and hence configuration, so ranges from 0.72 for used LWR recycle to 1.23 for breeder.
Used PRISM fuel is recycled after removal of fission products. The commercial-scale plant concept, part of an
'Advanced Recycling Center', uses three power blocks (six reactor modules) to provide 1866 MWe. See
also Electrometallurgical 'pyroprocessing' section in Processing Used Nuclear Fuel information paper.
A variant of this is proposed to utilise the UK's reactor-grade plutonium stockpile. A pair of PRISM units built
at Sellafield would be operated initially so as to bring the material up to the highly-radioactive 'spent fuel
standard' of self-protection and proliferation resistance. The whole stockpile could be irradiated thus in five
years, with some by-product electricity and the plant would then proceed to re-use that stored fuel over perhaps
55 years solely for 600 MWe of electricity generation. GEH has launched a web portal in support of its
proposal.

WESTINGHOUSE LFR

Westinghouse is developing a lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) design with flexible output to complement
intermittent renewable feed to the grid. Its high temperature capabilities will allow industrial heat applications.
Westinghouse expects it to be very competitive, having low capital and construction costs with enhanced safety.
Further operational and safety enhancements are also achieved by adoption of a fuel/cladding combination with
high temperature capability based on those under development by Westinghouse in the Accident Tolerant Fuel
program.

JAPAN

Japan plans to develop FBRs, and its Joyo experimental reactor which has been operating since 1977 is now
being boosted to 140 MWt. The 280 MWe Monju prototype commercial FBR was connected to the grid in
1995, but was then shut down for 15 years due to a sodium leak. It restarted in 2010 before closing down again
due to an ancillary mechanical problem and is now being decommissioned. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)
is involved with a consortium to develop a Japan Standard Fast Reactor (JSFR) concept, though with breeding
ratio less than 1:1. This is a large unit which would burn actinides with uranium and plutonium in oxide fuel. It
could be of any size from 500 to 1500 MWe.
See also information paper on Fast Neutron Reactors.

GENERATION IV DESIGNS
See information paper on six Generation IV Reactors, also DOE paper.

SMALL REACTORS
See also information paper on Small Nuclear Power Reactors for other advanced designs, mostly under 300
MWe. This paper includes some designs which have become significantly larger than 300 MWe since first
being described, but which are outside the mainstream categories dealt with here.

ACCELERATOR-DRIVEN SYSTEMS (ADS)

A related development has been the merging of accelerator and fission reactor technologies to generate
electricity and transmute long-lived radioactive wastes.
A high-energy proton beam hitting a heavy metal target produces neutrons by spallation. The neutrons cause
fission in the fuel, but unlike a conventional reactor, the fuel is subcritical, and fission ceases when the
accelerator is turned off. The fuel may be uranium, plutonium or thorium, possibly mixed with long-lived
wastes from conventional reactors.
World Nuclear Association (2020, February). World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power Reactors.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-
reactors.aspx#:~:text=The%20world%27s%20first%20nuclear%20reactors,about%20two%20billion%20years
%20ago.&text=The%20main%20design%20is%20the,steam%20in%20a%20secondary%20circuit.

World Nuclear Association (2020, February). World Nuclear Association. Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-
power-reactors.aspx