Nuclear power: Selecting reactor types

There's enough choice

There is something to choose from

The buyer of a nuclear power plant today has quite a bit of choice in terms of type of nuclear power plant and 'brand'. Plant suppliers from certain countries may be less welcome for political reasons and/or lack of confidence in their quality standards. But even then, there remains plenty to choose from.

The buyer will want the plant to meet certain safety requirements and it should be almost certain that a permit can be obtained for construction and commissioning of the plant. A licensing procedure, even with the best design, is a laborious procedure, with even public participation procedures, where foreign persons and agencies are also allowed to submit their views. The buyer will also look at the experience of the provider/builder ('vendor'). After all, he wants to minimise the risk of problems during construction.

So what are the 'big' nuclear plants on the market?

Some major common models are given below, as presented in a review by the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the organisation of companies in the global nuclear sector.

Developer Reactor Power; MWe gross Progress
Framatome (& EDF) EPR (PWR) 1750 Two units in operation in China, one under construction in Finland (almost finished), France (Flamanville) and in the UK. An EPR with a smaller power is being expected to be available soon.
GE Hitachi, Toshiba ABWR 1380 Commercially in operation in Japan since 1996-7.
US design certification 1997.
UK design certification application 2013.
Active safety systems.
Westinghouse AP1000 (PWR) 1250 Four units in operation in China; two under construction in the US; many units planned in China (but as type CAP1000).
KHNP APR1400 (PWR) 1450 In operation at Shin Kori 3&4 in South Korea and in Barakah in the UAE. Iunder construction: Shin Hanul 1&2 in South Korea.
Korean design certification 2003.
US design certification August 2019.
Gidropress VVER-1200 (PWR) 1200 In operation at Novovoronezh II and Leningrad II in Russian Federation, and at Ostrovets in Belarus. Under construction at Akkuyu in Turkye and at Rooppur in Bangladesh.
OKBM BN-800 880 Beloyarsk 4, demonstration - fast reactor and test facility.
CNNC & CGN Hualong One (PWR) 1170 Mainly a Chinese export design, in operation at Fuqing in China, and in Karachi in Pakistan.
Modern 'big' NPP-types, available on the market, but not yet constructed

  • ESBWR (1600 MW), this one was developed by GE and Hitachi. In fact this design takes the experience gained with previous BWR-developments like the ABWR and the SBWR, and implementing passive safety features like natural circulation of coolant.
  • APWR (1500 MW), Mitsubishi. Features a combination of passive and active cooling systems and a double containment.
  • Atmea1 PWR (1100 MW), this one was developed by Areva & Mitsubishi. It seems to be oriented at the export to countries looking for a mid-sized NPP. Features a core-catcher, just like the EPR.
  • EC6 (750 MW), Candu Energy. This is a heavy water reactor and it can use a diversity of fuel types which is a special feature of these types of reactors, which might be a distinct selling point.

Smaller reactor types, SMRs

In the table above the most common 'Generation III' or 'Generation III-plus' models.

There are also providers of smaller nuclear power plants, which can be built in modules, i.e. with more large pieces assembled in the factory and then given their place on site. Such an approach can help speed up construction. Such types of power plants are called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). They have capacities ranging from less than 10 MW to as much as 300 MW or even slightly more. At the upper limit, then, are SMRs that are modularly built, but close in power output to the existing nuclear power plant at Borssele. Therefore some will argue such SMRs are not real SMRs. However their intended manufacturing and construction process can be considered to have the modular ('M') approach of SMRs and relative to large NPPs of 1000 - 1600 MW such reactors can be considered of 'medium' ('M') size.

What determines the likelihood of succes of designs?

In most countries, they will opt for proven technology and a track record of construction experience.

Looking at the Dutch situation, Chinese- and Russian-made designs seem less promising.

Furthermore, people will be happy to opt for a design that has already gone through a licensing process in another western country, although this is not formally necessary. But it can facilitate the licensing process if the safety aspects of a design have already been extensively considered elsewhere in the world and a regulator has already assessed it transparently. And all its documents are accessible.

A buyer will also look at how the construction process of its desired reactor model was done elsewhere in the world. This does require looking very carefully at the circumstances under which it took place. For example, was it in a country that had not had a construction project (of a nuclear power plant) for a long time? That makes quite a difference, including in the licensing process. Was it the first time this design was built? If so, there must have been a lot of experience that will come in handy in a subsequent construction project and can speed up the construction process.

Sometimes a factor is that the buyer knows a certain specific technology well and likes to buy something that goes well with it.

Communication is a factor not to be underestimated. The tender process often shows how well parties can communicate and how safety cultures fit together. In a very complex process with detailed design, permit applications, construction, delivery, staff training and much more, optimal communication is essential.

Price and the possible form of contract - with or without co-(pre)financing by the vendor - are other very important (non-technical) issues that will also determine the likelihood of a 'deal' with a particular vendor.