Content deleted Content added
Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
|||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
[[File:Figure 4 Illustration of a light water small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) (20848048201).jpg|thumb|Illustration of a light water small modular nuclear reactor (SMR)]]
A '''small modular reactor''' ('''SMR''') is a type of [[nuclear fission reactor]] with a rated electrical power of 300 MW<sub>e</sub> or less. SMRs are designed to be factory-fabricated and transported to the installation site as [[prefabricated]] modules, allowing for streamlined construction, enhanced scalability, and potential integration into multi-unit configurations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hussein |first1=Esam M. A. |title=Emerging small modular nuclear power reactors: A critical review |journal=Physics Open |date=2020 |volume=5 |
Commercial SMRs have been designed to deliver an [[electrical power]] output as low as 5 [[Watt#MWe|MW<sub>e</sub>]] (electric) and up to 300 MW<sub>e</sub> per module. SMRs may also be designed purely for
Similar military small reactors were first designed in the 1950s to power submarines and ships with nuclear propulsion.<ref name="BASE">{{cite web |author=BASE, the German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management |date=2023-01-15 |title=Small Modular Reactors (SMR) |url=https://www.base.bund.de/en/nuclear-safety/nuclear-technology/small-modular-reactors/small-modular-reactors.html |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=BASE}}</ref> However, military small reactors are quite different from commercial SMRs in fuel type, design, and safety. The military, historically, relied on highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to power their small plants and not the low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel type used in SMRs. Power generation requirements are also substantially different. Nuclear
To
There has been strong interest from technology corporations in using SMRs to power [[data center]]s.
Line 15:
Modular reactors are expected to reduce on-site construction and increase containment efficiency. These reactors are also expected to enhance safety through [[passive nuclear safety|passive safety]] systems that operate without external power or human intervention during emergency scenarios, although this is not specific to SMRs but rather a characteristic of most modern reactor designs. SMRs are also claimed to have lower power plant staffing costs, as their operation is fairly simple,<ref name="auto22" /><ref name=":0b" /> and are claimed to have the ability to bypass financial and safety barriers that inhibit the construction of conventional reactors.<ref name=":0b" /><ref name=":1" />
Researchers at [[Oregon State University]] (OSU), headed by José N. Reyes Jr., invented the first commercial SMR in 2007.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Learn |first1=Scott |title=Oregon State professor wants to help power a nuclear renaissance |url=https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2010/03/oregon_state_professor_wants_t.html |website=oregonlive.com/ |date=7 March 2010 |publisher=The Oregonian |access-date=31 May 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=José N. Reyes Jr. - Biography |url=https://www.nae.edu/19579/19711/317876/326607/331293/331454/Jos-N-Reyes-Jr |website=nae.edu/ |publisher=National Academy of Engineering |access-date=31 May 2025}}</ref> Their research and design component prototypes formed the basis for [[NuScale Power]]'s commercial SMR design. NuScale and OSU developed the first full-scale SMR prototype in 2013<ref>{{cite web |title=The NuScale Design |url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1616/ML16161A723.pdf |website=
== Operational SMRs ==
Line 54:
=== Fast reactors ===
[[Fast-neutron reactor|Fast reactors]] don't use moderators. Instead they rely on
Fast reactors can be [[breeder reactor]]s. These reactors release enough neutrons to [[Nuclear transmutation|transmute]] [[Fertile material|non-fissionable elements]] into fissionable ones. A common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core by a "blanket" of {{chem|238|U}}, the most easily available isotope. Once the {{chem|238|U}} undergoes a [[neutron absorption]] reaction, it becomes {{chem|239|Pu}}, which can be removed from the reactor during refueling, and subsequently [[Nuclear reprocessing|reprocessed]] and used as fuel.<ref name="world-nuclear1">Carlson, J. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html "Fast Neutron Reactors"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130224035726/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html |date=24 February 2013 }}, [http://world-nuclear.org ''World Nuclear Association'']</ref>
Line 68:
=== Load following ===
SMR designs are generally expected to provide [[base load]] electrical power; some proposed designs are aimed to adjust their power output based on electricity demand.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Locatelli |first1=Giorgio |last2=Boarin |first2=Sara |last3=Fiordaliso |first3=Andrea |last4=Ricotti |first4=Marco E. |date=2018-04-01 |title=Load following of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) by cogeneration of hydrogen: A techno-economic analysis |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218300471 |journal=Energy |volume=148 |pages=494–505 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.041 |bibcode=2018Ene...148..494L |issn=0360-5442 |hdl=11311/1046552 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
Another approach, especially for SMRs designed to provide high temperature heat, is to adopt [[cogeneration]], maintaining consistent heat output, while diverting otherwise unneeded heat to an auxiliary use. [[District heating]], desalination and hydrogen production have been proposed as cogeneration options.<ref name="Cogeneration2">{{Cite journal |last1=Locatelli |first1=Giorgio |last2=Fiordaliso |first2=Andrea |last3=Boarin |first3=Sara |last4=Ricotti |first4=Marco E. |date=1 May 2017 |title=Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/110233/1/Load%20Following%20by%20Cogeneration%20V27%20to%20deposit.pdf |journal=Progress in Nuclear Energy |volume=97 |pages=153–161 |doi=10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.12.012 |bibcode=2017PNuE...97..153L |hdl=11311/1046551 }}</ref>
Overnight desalination requires sufficient freshwater storage capacity to deliver water at times other than when it is produced.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Locatelli |first1=Giorgio |last2=Boarin |first2=Sara |last3=Pellegrino |first3=Francesco |last4=Ricotti |first4=Marco E. |date=1 February 2015 |title=Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/91139/1/Accpeted%20version.pdf |journal=Energy |volume=80 |pages=41–54 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040 |bibcode=2015Ene....80...41L |hdl-access=free |hdl=11311/881391}}</ref> [[Reverse osmosis]] membrane and thermal [[Evaporator (marine)|evaporators]] are the two main techniques for [[seawater]] desalination. The membrane desalination process uses only electricity to power water pumps and is the most employed of the two methods. In the thermal process, the feed water stream is evaporated in different stages with continuous decreases in pressure between the stages. The thermal process directly uses thermal energy and avoids the conversion of thermal power into electricity. Thermal desalination is further divided into two main technologies: the [[multi-stage flash distillation]] (MSF) and the Multi-Effect Desalination (MED).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Locatelli |first1=Giorgio |last2=Boarin |first2=Sara |last3=Pellegrino |first3=Francesco |last4=Ricotti |first4=Marco E. |date=2015 |title=Load following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real options analysis |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040 |journal=Energy |volume=80 |pages=41–54 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.040 |bibcode=2015Ene....80...41L |issn=0360-5442 |hdl=11311/881391 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
Line 82:
Some SMR designs feature an integral design of which the primary reactor core, steam generator and the pressurizer are integrated within the sealed reactor vessel. This integrated design allows for the reduction of a possible accident as contamination leaks could be contained. In comparison to larger reactors having numerous components outside the reactor vessel, this feature increases the safety by decreasing the risks of an uncontained accident. Some SMR designs also envisage to install the reactor and the spent-fuel storage pools underground.<ref name=":14">{{Cite book |first=Nick |last=Cunningham |title=Small modular reactors : a possible path forward for nuclear power |date=2012 |publisher=American Security Project |oclc=813390081}}</ref>
Several molten salt reactors are being developed as SMRs, but they are not a new concept. Operational as research and test plants since the 1950s, molten salt reactors are now being touted as a clean and safe alternative to traditional water-cooled SMRs. One of the earliest molten salt reactor experiments was operated at Tennessee's Oak Ridge for four years, but shut down in 1969 after going critical. Even though the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment did end in a critical event, it was well known and respected throughout the nuclear research community as a success. However, later studies found the reactor only operated around 40 percent of the time, and experienced 171 unplanned shutdowns. These shutdowns were attributed to a number of technical problems, including: chronic pipe plugging, which led to charcoal beds designed to capture and remove radioactive materials; blower failures designed to remove reactor heat; and leaks within the freeze-valve safety system allowing fuel escapes. So far, modern metals have proven incapable of sustaining the natural corrosiveness of a small reactor's molten salt over a 4 year application.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ramana |first1=M.V. |title=Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today |url=https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/ |website=thebulletin.org |date=20 June 2022 |publisher=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |access-date=26 August 2025}}</ref>
Even Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactors (FHR) suffer from internal buildups of fission products, clogging cooling and safety systems. A method of reductive extraction can be used to catch buildups before they occur. This method removes the uranium fuel before the fission products. Unfortunately, the gas produced from the fluoride is highly corrosive and exposes plant metal to damage. As an alternative, nitrogen trifluoride is being proposed. However, ongoing research has not proven this to be a viable alternative and its efficacy is unclear.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Scheele |first1=Randall |title=Flibe Molten Salt Processing |url=https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/flibe-molten-salt-processing |website=energy.gov |publisher=Flibe Energy, Inc. |access-date=31 August 2025}}</ref>
== Radioactive waste ==
New technology in nuclear waste recycling is promising safer and less expensive alternatives to today's methods. Known as partitioning and transmutation (P&T), this recycling and waste reducing process can reduce spent fuel to a smaller volume of waste with considerably less radiotoxicity.
A chemical separation process is used in P&T to extract plutonium and minor actinides. A specially designed reactor is then used to perform the transmutation of transuranic elements (neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium). Fission is finally applied to safely destroy the remaining elements. P&T is believed to improve radioactive waste management due to the expected reduction in overall waste volume P&T creates.
Even highly enriched uranium reactors, applying shorter fuel cycle technologies, are now recycling major and minor actinides without the need for high purification schemes. The method is now used by LWR fast reactors in France, India, Japan and the Russian Federation. Their waste requires no plutonium separation from the other actinides. Pyroprocessing spent fuel is currently under development for LWR fast reactors and now operational in India, the Russian Federation and the European Union. Because SMR technology is so new, P&T has yet to be used on the spent fuel these plants will create. However, it is likely to be an important recycling method for most SMRs as this technology develops.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bychkov |first1=Alexander V. |title=THE FUTURE: INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL |url=https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull55-3/55304622223.pdf |website=iaea.org |publisher=IAEA |access-date=27 August 2025}}</ref>
The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle for SMRs is a complex and contested issue that remains under debate.<ref name="IAEA2023">
{{cite report
Line 93 ⟶ 103:
|url=https://www.iaea.org/publications/14708/considerations-for-the-back-end-of-the-fuel-cycle-of-small-modular-reactors
|access-date=12 June 2025
}}</ref><ref name="Krall2022" /> The quantity and radiotoxicity of the radioactive waste produced by SMRs depend primarily on their design and the corresponding fuel cycle. Because SMRs encompass a broad spectrum of nuclear reactor types, there is no simple answer to this issue. SMRs may include small [[light water reactor]]s of the third generation, as well as small fast neutron reactors of the fourth generation.
Some startup companies developing unconventional SMR prototypes often advocate waste reduction as a key advantage of their proposed solutions, and in some cases claim that their technology could eliminate the need for a deep [[geological repository]] to dispose of high-level and long-lived radioactive waste.<ref name="world-nuclear1"/><ref name="Krall2022"/> This is particularly true for companies developing fast neutron reactors of the fourth generation, such as molten salt reactors and metal-cooled reactors, including the [[sodium-cooled fast reactor]] and [[lead-cooled fast reactor]].<ref name="OECD2021">
Line 112 ⟶ 122:
|access-date=12 June 2025
}}</ref>
Fast breeder reactors “burn” {{chem|235|U|link=Uranium-235}} (0.7% of [[natural uranium]]) as fuel, but they also convert [[fertile material]]s such as {{chem|238|U|link=Uranium-238}} (which makes up 99.3% of natural uranium) into [[fissile]] {{chem|239|Pu|link=Plutonium-239}}. This newly produced plutonium can then be used as nuclear fuel.<ref name="world-nuclear1"/> The [[traveling wave reactor]] proposed by [[TerraPower]] is designed to "burn" the fuel it breeds in situ, without requiring its removal from the reactor core or further reprocessing.<ref>Wald, M. [http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/?a=f "TR10: Traveling Wave Reactor"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111011040125/http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/?a=f |date=11 October 2011 }}, [http://www.technologyreview.com ''Technology Review'']</ref>
Line 176 ⟶ 182:
A study by Keto ''et al.'' (2022) at the [[VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland]] also addressed the management of [[spent nuclear fuel]] (SNF) and low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) from the possible future deployment of SMRs in [[Finland]]. The study indicated that, per gigawatt-electric-year (GWe-year), larger masses of SNF and other [[high-level waste]] (HLW), as well as larger volumes of [[low-level waste]] (LLW), would be produced by a light water SMR compared to a large nuclear power plant.<ref name="Keto2022">{{cite report |last1=Keto |first1=Paula |last2=Juutilainen |first2=Pauli |last3=Schatz |first3=Timothy |last4=Naumer |first4=Sami |last5=Häkkinen |first5=Silja |title=Waste Management of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Finland |publisher=VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland |date=2022-02-28 |url=https://cris.vtt.fi/en/publications/waste-management-of-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-in-finland |access-date=2023-12-15}}</ref>
A report by the [[Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection|German Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management]] (BASE) found that extensive interim storage and fuel transports would still be required for SMRs. The report also concluded that a deep geological repository is unavoidable due to the presence of highly mobile, long-lived fission products that cannot be efficiently [[Nuclear transmutation|transmuted]] because of their low [[neutron cross section]]. This is the case with dose-dominating radionuclides such as {{chem|129|I|link=Iodine-129}}, {{chem|99|Tc|link=Technetium-99}}, and {{chem|79|Se|link=Selenium-79}}, which exist as [[solubility|soluble]] [[anion]]s that are not [[Sorption|sorbed]] onto the negatively charged minerals and are not retarded in geological media
== Nuclear proliferation ==
Line 191 ⟶ 197:
Light-water reactors designed to run on [[thorium]] offer increased [[Nuclear proliferation|proliferation]] resistance compared to the conventional uranium cycle, though [[molten salt reactors]] have a substantial risk.<ref name="U-232 and the proliferation-resistance of U-233 in spent fuel2">{{Cite journal |last1=Kang |first1=J. |last2=Von Hippel |first2=F. N. |year=2001 |title=U-232 and the proliferation-resistance of U-233 in spent fuel |journal=Science & Global Security |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=1–32 |bibcode=2001S&GS....9....1K |doi=10.1080/08929880108426485 |s2cid=8033110}} {{cite web |title=Archived copy |url=http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141203135336/http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf |archive-date=3 December 2014 |access-date=2 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ashley |first1=Stephen |year=2012 |title=Thorium fuel has risks |journal=Nature |volume=492 |issue=7427 |pages=31–33 |bibcode=2012Natur.492...31A |doi=10.1038/492031a |pmid=23222590 |s2cid=4414368 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
SMRs are transported from the factories without fuel, as they are fueled on the ultimate site, except some [[Nuclear microreactor|microreactors]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Office of Nuclear Energy |url=https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-nuclear-microreactor |title=What is a Nuclear Microreactor? |publisher=Office of Nuclear Energy |date= |access-date=2022-08-18}}</ref> This implies an independent transport of the fuel to the site and therefore increases the risk of nuclear proliferation. At the same time, millions of tons of nuclear waste are being shipped across the nation each year and there is no history of nuclear fuel or waste theft from these deliveries in the US.
== Licensing process ==
Licensing is an essential process required to guarantee the safety, security and safeguards of a new nuclear installation.<ref name="3S_Risk_Analysis">{{cite conference |last1=Williams |first1=Adam David |last2=Osborn |first2=Douglas |last3=Cohn |first3=Brian |year=2019 |title=Security Safety and Safeguards (3S) risk analysis for small modular reactors |conference=INMM Annual Meeting |publisher=Sandia National Laboratory |osti=1640767 |url=https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1640767 |access-date=2023-12-07}}</ref>
The most common licensing process, applied by existing commercial reactors, is for the operation of light water reactors ([[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]] and [[Boiling water reactor|BWR]]). Early designs for large-scale reactors date back to the 1960s and 1970s during the construction of the nuclear reactor fleet currently in service. Some adaptations of the original licensing process by the US's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have been repurposed to better correspond to the specific characteristics and needs of the deployment of SMR units.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sainati |first1=Tristano |last2=Locatelli |first2=Giorgio |last3=Brookes |first3=Naomi |date=15 March 2015 |title=Small Modular Reactors: Licensing constraints and the way forward |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/91108/1/Accepted%20version.pdf |journal=Energy |volume=82 |pages=1092–1095 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.079 |bibcode=2015Ene....82.1092S}}</ref> In particular, the US [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] process for [[Nuclear licensing|licensing]] has focused mainly on conventional reactors. Design and safety specifications, human and organizational factors (including staffing requirements) have been developed for reactors with electrical output of more than 700 MWe.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rysavy |first1=Charles F. |last2=Rhyne |first2=Stephen K. |last3=Shaw |first3=Roger P. |title=Small Modular Reactors |url=http://apps.americanbar.org/environ/committees/nuclearpower/docs/SMR-Dec_2009.pdf |website=American Bar Association |department=Special Committee on Nuclear Power, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304194918/http://apps.americanbar.org/environ/committees/nuclearpower/docs/SMR-Dec_2009.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |pages=1–3 |date=December 2009 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Smith |first1=Tyson |department=Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources |title=Special Committee on Nuclear Power, Message From The Chair |url=http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=NR601577 |website=American Bar Association |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120609132032/http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=NR601577 |archive-date=June 9, 2012 |date=May 25, 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
Line 264 ⟶ 270:
=== China ===
In July 2019, [[China National Nuclear Corporation]] announced it would build an [[ACP100]] SMR on the north-west side of the existing [[Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant]] at [[Changjiang]], in the [[Hainan]] province by the end of the year.<ref name=wnn-20190722>{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/CNNC-launches-demonstration-SMR-project |title=''CNNC launches demonstration SMR project'' |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=22 July 2019}}</ref> On 7 June 2021, the demonstration project, named the [[Linglong One]], was approved by China's National Development and Reform Commission.<ref>{{Cite web |title=''China approves construction of demonstration SMR : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News'' |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Construction-of-demonstration-Chinese-SMR-approved |access-date=2021-07-13 |website=world-nuclear-news.org |date=7 June 2021 }}</ref> In July, [[China National Nuclear Corporation]] (CNNC) started construction,<ref>{{Cite news |author=Editing staff |date=2021-07-13 |title=''China launches first commercial onshore small reactor project'' |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-nuclearpower-idUSKBN2EJ073}}</ref> and in October 2021, the containment vessel bottom of the first of two units was installed. It is the world's first commercial land-based SMR prototype.<ref name="containment-linglong1">[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Installation-of-containment-starts-at-Chinese-SMR ''Installation of containment starts at Chinese SMR.''] WNN, 25 Oct 2021</ref>
In August 2023, the core module was installed. The core module includes an integrated [[pressure vessel]], [[Steam generator (nuclear power)|steam generator]], primary pump receiver. The reactor's planned capacity is 125 MWe.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Largue |first=Pamela |date=2023-08-11 |title=Core module instaled at China's Linglong One modular reactor |url=https://www.powerengineeringint.com/nuclear/reactors/core-module-instaled-at-chinas-linglong-one-modular-reactor/ |access-date=2023-08-13 |website=Power Engineering International |language=en-US}}</ref>
Line 290 ⟶ 296:
=== United States ===
The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by [[NuScale Power]] around 2030,<ref>{{cite web |title=Technology Deployment |url=https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power#tracking |access-date=19 December 2023 |website=iea.org |publisher=US Department of Energy}}</ref> but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs.<ref>{{Cite web
SMRs differ in terms of staffing, safety and deployment time.<ref>{{cite web |date=2015 |title=Licensing Small Modular Reactors: An Overview of Regulatory and Policy Issues |url=https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/ostendorff_licensingsmrs_2rs_reduced_4_0.pdf |website=Hoover Institution}}</ref> US government studies to evaluate SMR-associated risks are claimed to have slowed the licensing process.<ref name="auto" /><ref name="smallBeauty" /><ref name="sciencedirect.com">{{cite journal |last1=Mignacca |first1=Benito |last2=Locatelli |first2=Giorgio |last3=Sainati |first3=Tristano |date=20 Jun 2020 |title=Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors |journal=Energy |volume=206 |article-number=118137 |bibcode=2020Ene...20618137M |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2020.118137 |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free |hdl=11311/1204935}}</ref> One main concern with SMRs and their large number, needed to reach an economic profitability, is preventing [[nuclear proliferation]].<ref name="areva-20100618" /><ref name="auto1b" />
Standard Power, a provider of infrastructure as a service to advanced data processing companies, has chosen to work with [[NuScale Power]] and ENTRA1 Energy, founded by Wadie Habboush,<ref>{{
{{wide image|Former Genoa coal power plant.jpg|400px|Former [[Genoa, Wisconsin|Genoa]] coal power plant and dry cask storage, July 2023. The La Crosse [[La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor|BWR]] is not in these photos since it was demolished in 2019.||right
Line 302 ⟶ 308:
[[NuScale Power]] is working with Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. (Associated) in Missouri to evaluate deployment of VOYGR SMR power plants as part of Associated's due diligence to explore reliable, responsible sources of energy.<ref>{{cite web |title=Associated Electric Cooperative Missouri |url=https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/projects |website=nuscalepower.com |publisher=NuSclae Power |access-date=16 December 2023}}</ref>
The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) had partnered with [[Energy Northwest]] to explore siting a [[NuScale Power]] reactor in [[Idaho]], possibly on the [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]]'s [[Idaho National Laboratory]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.uamps.com/index.php/38-items/24-carbon-free-power-project |title=Carbon Free |website=www.uamps.com |access-date=8 April 2016 |archive-date=19 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170119125359/http://www.uamps.com/index.php/38-items/24-carbon-free-power-project |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=eenews-20231109>{{cite news |url=https://www.eenews.net/articles/nuscale-cancels-first-of-a-kind-nuclear-project-as-costs-surge/ |title=NuScale cancels first-of-a-kind nuclear project as costs surge |last=Bright |first=Zach |website=E&E News |publisher=Politico |date=9 November 2023 |access-date=9 November 2023}}</ref> Known as the [[Carbon Free Power Project]], the project was canceled in November 2023 for cost reasons.<ref name=eenews-20231109 /> NuScale said in January 2023 the target price for power from the plant was $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gardner |first1=Timothy |title=My View Following Saved Energy Energy Grid & Infrastructure Nuclear Sustainable Markets NuScale ends Idaho project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/ |website=reuters.com |date=9 November 2023 |publisher=Reuters |access-date=15 December 2023}}</ref> Still, increased cost estimates remain well below traditional nuclear power used for commercial facilities and most other less reliable and more environmentally hazardous forms of power production.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fernández |first1=Lucía |title=Estimated unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States in 2023, by technology (in U.S. dollars per megawatt hour) |url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ |website=statista.com |publisher=Statista |access-date=15 December 2023}}</ref>
The [[Galena Nuclear Power Plant]] in [[Galena, Alaska]] was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation. It was a potential deployment for the [[Toshiba 4S]] reactor.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nuclear Power and the Perils of Pioneering |url=https://www.uaf.edu/acep-blog/nuclear-power-and-the-perils-of-pioneering.php |access-date=2023-12-05 |website=www.uaf.edu |language=en}}</ref> The project was "effectively stalled". Toshiba never began the expensive process for approval that is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
| |||