Earlier this year, I wrote a post entitled SMRs Entering a New and Dynamic Phase in which I covered the latest developments in small modular reactors (SMR). It was clear that the pace of advancement was increasing but even so, I’ve been surprised by the speed at which this emerging area of the nuclear energy industry has continued to move. Here are just a few recent announcements that have caught my eye:
In March of this year, four Canadian provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta) released a joint strategic plan for SMR development and deployment. This includes a micro reactor in service by 2026, followed by the first two grid-scale SMRs in 2028 and 2029 respectively. Canada as a jurisdiction has already invested large sums in SMR R&D and has set its sights on becoming a global hub for SMR expertise.
In April, one of the SMR front runners, US-based NuScale, announced a new partnership with South Korea’s Doosan Enerbility. Doosan wants to start producing forging materials for reactors later this year and anticipates full-scale equipment manufacturing by the second half of 2023. In my opinion, this is a bigger deal than the dates set for Canada’s first SMRs. Reason being, one of the great advantages of SMR tech is the potential for rapid, widescale deployment. For that to happen, we need the factories in place.
In May, UK-headquartered Newcleo, completed a USD $316M raise and announced an agreement with Orano for feasibility studies on establishing a mixed plutonium-uranium oxides production plant.
In June, French nuclear giant, EDF, announced that the European regulators had chosen its SMR design as the European case study. The EU is a bit further behind the UK and North America, and it’s not exactly known for speed but still, it’s anticipated that the certification for EDF’s design, and the supply chain to support it, will be in place by the end of the decade.
In the same month, the US State of Maryland awarded grants to evaluate repurposing coal fired power stations with SMRs. This is a smaller scale announcement but I’ve included it because the idea of refitting coal-based plants with nuclear is something I find particularly exciting. As proponents of nuclear energy already know, the most obvious replacement for fossil fuel generated electricity is nuclear power because it (nuclear) is the only clean form of generation that provides baseload power, 24/7.
Below is the WNA’s list of SMRs in the operating/construction/planning/design phases.
Small reactors operating
| Name | Capacity | Type | Developer |
| CNP-300 | 300 MWe | PWR | SNERDI/CNNC, Pakistan & China |
| PHWR-220 | 220 MWe | PHWR | NPCIL, India |
| EGP-6 | 11 MWe | LWGR | at Bilibino, Siberia (cogen, soon to retire) |
| KLT-40S | 35 MWe | PWR | OKBM, Russia |
| RITM-200 | 50 MWe | Integral PWR, civil marine | OKBM, Russia |
Small reactor designs under construction
| Name | Capacity | Type | Developer |
| CAREM25 | 27 MWe | Integral PWR | CNEA & INVAP, Argentina |
| HTR-PM | 210 MWe | Twin HTR | INET, CNEC & Huaneng, China |
| ACP100/Linglong One | 125 MWe | Integral PWR | CNNC, China |
| BREST | 300 MWe | Lead FNR | RDIPE, Russia |
Small reactors for near-term deployment – development well advanced
| Name | Capacity | Type | Developer |
| VBER-300 | 300 MWe | PWR | OKBM, Russia |
| NuScale Power Module | 77 MWe | Integral PWR | NuScale Power + Fluor, USA |
| SMR-160 | 160 MWe | PWR | Holtec, USA + SNC-Lavalin, Canada |
| SMART | 100 MWe | Integral PWR | KAERI, South Korea |
| BWRX-300 | 300 MWe | BWR | GE Hitachi, USA |
| PRISM | 311 MWe | Sodium FNR | GE Hitachi, USA |
| Natrium | 345 MWe | Sodium FNR | TerraPower + GE Hitachi, USA |
| ARC-100 | 100 MWe | Sodium FNR | ARC with GE Hitachi, USA |
| Integral MSR | 192 MWe | MSR | Terrestrial Energy, Canada |
| Seaborg CMSR | 100 MWe | MSR | Seaborg, Denmark |
| Hermes prototype | 35 MWt | MSR-Triso | Kairos, USA |
| RITM-200M | 50 MWe | Integral PWR | OKBM, Russia |
| RITM-200N | 55 MWe | Integral PWR | OKBM, Russia |
| BANDI-60S | 60 MWe | PWR | Kepco, South Korea |
| Xe-100 | 80 MWe | HTR | X-energy, USA |
| ACPR50S | 60 MWe | PWR | CGN, China |
| Moltex SSR-W | 300 MWe | MSR | Moltex, UK |
Small reactor designs at earlier stages (or shelved)
| Name | Capacity | Type | Developer |
| EM2 | 240 MWe | HTR, FNR | General Atomics (USA) |
| FMR | 50 MWe | HTR, FNR | General Atomics + Framatome |
| VK-300 | 300 MWe | BWR | NIKIET, Russia |
| AHWR-300 LEU | 300 MWe | PHWR | BARC, India |
| CAP200 LandStar-V | 220 MWe | PWR | SNERDI/SPIC, China |
| SNP350 | 350 MWe | PWR | SNERDI, China |
| ACPR100 | 140 MWe | Integral PWR | CGN, China |
| IMR | 350 MWe | Integral PWR | Mitsubishi Heavy Ind, Japan* |
| Westinghouse SMR | 225 MWe | Integral PWR | Westinghouse, USA* |
| mPower | 195 MWe | Integral PWR | BWXT, USA* |
| UK SMR | 470 MWe | PWR | Rolls-Royce SMR, UK |
| PBMR | 165 MWe | HTR | PBMR, South Africa* |
| HTMR-100 | 35 MWe | HTR | HTMR Ltd, South Africa |
| MCFR | large? | MSR/FNR | Southern Co, TerraPower, USA |
| SVBR-100 | 100 MWe | Lead-Bi FNR | AKME-Engineering, Russia* |
| Westinghouse LFR | 300 MWe | Lead FNR | Westinghouse, USA |
| TMSR-SF | 100 MWt | MSR | SINAP, China |
| PB-FHR | 100 MWe | MSR | UC Berkeley, USA |
| Moltex SSR-U | 150 MWe | MSR/FNR | Moltex, UK |
| Thorcon TMSR | 250 MWe | MSR | Martingale, USA |
| Leadir-PS100 | 36 MWe | Lead-cooled | Northern Nuclear, Canada |
Very small reactor designs being developed (up to 25 MWe)
| Name | Capacity | Type | Developer |
| U-battery | 4 MWe | HTR | Urenco-led consortium, UK |
| Starcore | 10-20 MWe | HTR | Starcore, Quebec |
| MMR-5/-10 | 5 or 10 MWe | HTR | UltraSafe Nuclear, USA |
| Holos Quad | 3-13 MWe | HTR | HolosGen, USA |
| Gen4 module | 25 MWe | Lead-bismuth FNR | Gen4 (Hyperion), USA |
| Xe-Mobile | 1-5 MWe | HTR | X-energy, USA |
| BANR | 50 MWt | HTR | BWXT, USA |
| Sealer | 3-10 MWe | Lead FNR | LeadCold, Sweden |
| eVinci | 0.2-5 MWe | Heatpipe FNR | Westinghouse, USA |
| Aurora | 1.5 MWe | Heatpipe FNR | Oklo, USA |
| NuScale micro | 1-10 MWe | Heatpipe | NuScale, USA |
I’m going to leave you with this thought: in the company’s April announcement, NuScale’s CEO, John Hopkins, said that its agreement with Doosan “showcases NuScale’s commercial readiness and signals to the world that NuScale is truly the frontrunner in the race to bring SMRs to market.”
Hopkins is correct in describing SMR development as a race to market. There are numerous SMR hopefuls, each backed by governments that are hungry for the employment and revenue benefits that will come with commercial success. And the demand is already there. You just have to take a look at announcements coming out of countries like the UK, which wants to build one reactor per year, to see the potential customer base.
If you have any questions or would like further information about Fission, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Also, be sure to follow us on social and sign up for email updates.
Ross McElroy, President and CEO of Fission Uranium
