​

A Dozen Nuclear Reactor Designs Under Regulatory Review in Canada

by

There are dozen nuclear reactors that in applying or in the process of getting vendor design reviews from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The VDR is divided into three phases, each requiring increasingly more detailed technical information:
• Phase 1: Compliance with regulatory requirements. The conceptual design is expected to be completed and described. For a discrete set of focus areas, CNSC staff assess how the vendor’s design processes demonstrate intent to meet CNSC requirements.
• Phase 2: Identification of potential fundamental barriers to licensing. Subsequent to Phase 1, this phase goes into further detail, with a focus on identifying whether there are any potential fundamental barriers to licensing.
• Phase 3: A follow-up to Phase 2. This phase focuses on a more detailed review of selected focus areas identified by the vendor that pertain to a license to construct.

There are several nuclear reactor designs that have completed pre-licensing reviews.

Completed vendor pre-licensing vendor design reviews
Note: Due to the commercially sensitive and proprietary information in the full report, the CNSC is only able to post the Executive Summaries.

For any detailed information concerning the results of a VDR, please contact the associated vendor.

SMR, LLC. – SMR-160:
Phase 1 Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review Executive Summary: SMR, LLC. (August 2020)

SMR LLC is designing a 160 MW(e) (525 MW(th)) light-water reactor, the SMR-160. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), as Canada’s nuclear regulator, under the authority of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, entered into an agreement with SMR LLC to conduct a Phase 1 pre-licensing vendor design review (VDR) of the SMR-160 light-water reactor design.

ARC Nuclear Canada Inc. – ARC-100:
Phase 1 Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review Executive Summary: ARC Nuclear Canada Inc. (October 2019)

Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC) Nuclear Canada Inc. (ARC Canada Inc.) is designing a 286 megawatt thermal sodium-cooled fast reactor, ARC-100, with a net nominal electrical output of approximately 100 megawatts.

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation – MMR:
Phase 1 Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review Executive Summary: Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) (February 2019)

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) is designing a 15-thermal-megawatt micro modular reactor (MMR), with a net electrical output of approximately 5 megawatts. The MMR concept draws on operational experience from the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors developed by the U.S., Germany, China and Japan.

In May 2016, the CNSC and USNC signed a service agreement for the conduct of a Phase 1 VDR of the MMR.

Terrestrial Energy Inc. – IMSR 400:
Phase 1 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of Terrestrial Energy’s 400-thermal-megawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400) (PDF, November 2017)

The CNSC has completed a Phase 1 VDR of the Terrestrial Energy Inc. (TEI) 400-thermal megawatt integral molten salt reactor (IMSR400).

Candu Energy* – EC 6 (Enhanced CANDU):
On October 2, 2011, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. acquired certain assets of AECL’s commercial operations. The business operates as a wholly owned subsidiary called Candu Energy Inc.

Phase 1 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of AECL’s Enhanced Candu – EC 6 (PDF, April 2010)
Phase 2: Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of Candu Energy’s Enhanced Candu – EC 6 (PDF, April 2012)
Phase 3: Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of Candu Energy’s EC6TM Reactor Design (PDF, June 2013)

Westinghouse – AP1000:
Phase 1 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of Westinghouse’s Advanced Passive Plant Design (AP1000TM) (PDF, January 2010)
Phase 2: Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of Westinghouse’s Advanced Passive Plan Design (AP1000TM) (PDF, June 2013)

ATMEA – ATMEA1:
Phase 1: Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of ATMEA’s ATEMA1 Reactor (PDF, June 2013)

AREVA – EPR:
Phase 1 Review terminated effective December 27, 2012

AECL – ACR-1000:
Phase 1 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of AECL’s Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR-1000) (PDF, December 2008)
Phase 2 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of AECL’s Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR-1000) (PDF, August 2009)
Phase 3 Executive Summary: Pre-Project Review of AECL’s Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR-1000) (PDF, December 2010)

SOURCES – Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

9 thoughts on “A Dozen Nuclear Reactor Designs Under Regulatory Review in Canada”

  1. #6 oil is the dirtiest fuel there it expect for maybe soft coal. It is the garbage that is left over after you take everything useful out.

    There is no reason for nuclear reactors to be so expensive except maybe they use the wrong technology to implement them. The nuclear fuel prorated over thirty years is cheaper than #6 oil. The upfront capital cost of the reactor is what makes nuclear energy expensive. Simple architecture and mass production would make a nuclear boiler cheap.

  2. If compact economical PWRs or BWRs existed the US Navy would be using them in all its ships, not just carriers and submarines.

    I cannot see a PWR/BWR doing this as they are not compact (even with weapons grade fuel) and are complex to run and decomission. Most naval ships might go nuclear proplusion in the future with MSRs. The Russians had a lead cooled sub, but eventually went for PWRs as the lead cooled sub cost to much to run (it did cause NATO to undertake a crash program to build faster torpedos, as due to its compact size and high power the sub could outrun all NATO torpedos at the time).

    Rather than dealing with even a simpler MSR on every container ship, it would probably just be easier to produce methanol from Seawater using a big MSR (or a dozen in one place) and then just burn that methanol in existing ships. Once the cost of the plant has been paid off this methanol could get pretty cheap (assuming non pressurized MSRs have longer plant lives than PWRs).

  3. Rather ironically, big ships with giant diesels are already the lowest carbon form of transport, by a country mile, and the sulfur dioxide from their dirty fuel acts as cloud condensation nuclei, and so gives them a net global cooling effect. They're phasing out high sulfur fuel anyway, and the EU is starting to include it in carbon pricing. If nuclear ships weren't too much costlier to build, they might be able to run faster – say thirty knots instead of twenty – without much difference in fuel price, and so give a quicker return on their capital. A stumbling block is all the ports that would rather have a particle belching diesel burner than a no-emission nuke. The cruise ships that call here run their engines the whole time in port, but nuclear powered ones are banned.

  4. It's not impossible that in the future, the regulations/tax/outright bans on burning fossil fuels might push the cost of bunker oil fuelled diesels up to the point where nukes are viable.

    But it's not likely.

  5. What I would like to see is a small cheap safe lead cooled reactor that would provide steam to power container ships. Design to last the life of the ship with no refueling.

  8. With Canada also being one of the leaders in CO2 extraction from air technology, Canada should focus on using the next generation of commercial nuclear reactors so it can be one of the major producers of eMethanol (renewable methanol).

    eMethanol can be exported by methanol tankers– distributing carbon neutral methanol throughout the world.

    Methanol can be used to power cheaply retrofitted natural gas electric power plants so that Canadian nuclear reactors could actually supply electricity practically anywhere in the world. Methanol can power retrofitted marine vessels. eMethanol can be converted into eGasoline for regular automobiles. eMethanol can be converted into a variety of jet fuels for carbon neutral air transport. eMethanol can be converted into dimethyl either– a cleaner carbon neutral diesel fuel substitute. Methanol, of course, can be used with hydrogen fuel cells (using the reformed methanol process) for a variety of power plants and vehicles.

  9. this article is going to look like self-driving car predictions within 5 years

    So, actual working models in prototype form, but they occasionally kill people?

Comments are closed.