La lettre de l'I­tésé ­ Numéro 29 ­ Automne 201616

Eclairages

The development of small modular reactors:Which markets for which applications ?

par Michel Berthelemy, Martin Leurent, CEA/DAS/I­tésé ­UPSaclayGiorgio Locatelli, ­ Université de LEEDS

This paper reviews the current discourses held on the potential development ofSMR up to 2035. The views supported by existing market studies are diverse interms of market applications, potential deployment scale, and geographical areas.However, most of them agree on the fact that SMRs would be a niche marketwithin the next decades compared to large nuclear reactors. Our analysis alsoindicates that uncertainties are high with regards to economic and regulatoryissues. Stakeholders, including policy makers, should in particular focus ondeveloping the supply chain and addressing licensing issues. These arefundamental aspects to enable SMR to meet the projected market demandwithout jeopardizing nuclear safety standards or the overall economics.

The interest in developing SMR is growing aroundthe world

A small reactor is not a new technology for thenuclear sector, as in fact the first nuclear reactors

developed in the 1950s and early 60s were typically of asize lower than 200 MWe. The size of nuclear reactors hasgradually increased in order to take advantage fromeconomies of scale. Reactor size of modern GenerationII/III reactors ranges between 1000 and 1700 MWe.

Today, several reactor vendors are moving towardmodular construction for both large and small reactors.Modularization could become a key driver for smallreactors, typically between 50 and 300 MWe(1) as it couldtackle some of the challenges with the construction andfinancing of first­of­a­kind (FOAK) Gen III reactors(Locatelli et al., 2014). In this context, Small ModularReactors (SMRs) could benefit from series effect throughthe integration of most of the reactor construction andassembly steps within the same factory (Carelli et al.,2008). This could limit potential delays and cost overruns,typical of large reactors. The low investment costs perreactor (in absolute terms), could also reduce the riskpremium expected and ultimately lower the financialcosts of nuclear power (OECD/NEA, 2011). Finally,staged construction of SMR modules could improve thecash­flow and risk profile of the project and so financingconditions (Gollier et al., 2005), and support thediversification of a utility or country power generationportfolio.

Therefore, as a standardized, large scale deployment willplay a significant role for the economics of SMR, a good

understanding of the short/medium term marketoutlook is needed to assess the opportunity to developand deploy this technology.

As the comparison of Table 1 and 2 emphasizes, thenuclear sector is considering a large range oftechnological options for SMRs that go beyond simplyscaling down LWRs. Reactor concepts currentlymarketed as SMRs cover both thermal and fastspectrums, some of which based on Generation IVsystems. In the following, we will leave aside SMRsbased on Gen IV concepts and focus on PWR SMRs thatare at a more advanced stage of technologicaldevelopments(2), and hence have a lower level ofuncertainty.

Most of the PWR SMRs concepts investigate in prioritythe provision of baseload electricity. Some also includeinnovative, non­electric applications such as heat co­generation (e.g. for desalination or district heating), orflexibility services to the grid. Flexibility services aregaining importance with the increasing penetration ofintermittent renewables. Finally, SMRs could also target“niche” applications, for instance providing energy inremote areas where the main alternative would be dieselgenerators.

With such a broad range of market applications, itremains difficult for the nuclear sector to consolidate acomprehensive outlook on the short­medium termmarket potential for SMRs. We therefore conducted anextensive review of market studies and ongoing debateson PWR SMRs with the aim of providing a usefulanalytical tool for energy analysts and policy makers. We

17Automne 2016 ­ Numéro 29­ La lettre de l'I­tésé

Eclairages

first present a summary of potential market applications.We then move to the review of existing market studies.Finally, we discuss key economic and regulatory issuesthat SMR developers face in the short run.

Table 1: selected LWR SMR under­development

Table 2 : selected non­LWR SMR under­development

A large range of potential market applications areconsidered by SMR developers

SMR developers aim to broaden the market scope ofnuclear power applications beyond traditional baseloadelectricity provision in a centralized electric system.

In a nutshell, if we assume that the competitiveness isalready achieved (see hereafter), three segments ofpotential market applications can be considered forSMRs :

• SMR can be developed for baseload power generationin a centralized grid, potentially targeting utilities thatwould otherwise not consider large NPPs;• SMR can be developed for remote market applications,where alternatives are either expensive or not easilyavailable;• SMR can offer flexibility services to the grid, which isgaining importance in a context of an increasing share of

intermittent renewables. At times when electricitygeneration from renewables is sufficient to coverdemand, electricity from SMRs could be used forhydrogen production. SMRs should also be designed toperform heat extraction from the Rankine cycle in anefficient way.

Baseload electricity provision to the grid

SMR can be developed for traditional baseload electricityprovision. For instance, this is the strategy of Nuscale forthe development of its first power plant with a localutility in Utah(3). This project aims to deploy by 2024 asingle plant with six 50 MWe modules on (or near) a siteof the Idaho National Laboratory in order to meetexpected increase power demand in the region withbaseload low carbon electricity.

This project is a good example of a SMR developed inorder to compete with other baseload alternatives (and inparticular coal or gas) in areas where the grid and/orpower demand limit the need for large reactors. In thismarket situation, the ability of first of a kind SMR torealize their anticipated economic benefits in terms ofconstruction costs and lead time will play a key role forcommercial development.

Another example would be the replacement of smallpower plants with a power capacity below 300 MWe byseveral SMR modules. This possibility has beenconsidered in the case of retiring coal power plants in theUS (see figure 1), and more recently for nuclear sites inthe UK where Magnox reactors were operated(4). Hence,these projects would avoid the need of expensiveupgrades of the grid and potentially take advantage ofexisting nuclear site infrastructures. This is of specificinterest in a country such as the UK where the availabilityof new nuclear sites for large NPPs may be limited(Energy Technologies Institute, 2015).

Figure 1: US coal plants: capacity vs commissioning dateSource: OECD/NEA (2016)

18 La lettre de l'I­tésé ­ Numéro 29 ­ Automne 2016

Eclairages

Distributed power delivery to remote areas (off grid)

SMRs can target more specifically remote sites wherealternatives are expensive or not easily available. Thisniche market has been pursued for some years by Russiawith the development of floating SMRs. The KLT­40floating nuclear reactor “Akademik Lomonosov” is underconstruction and is expected to be completed in 2017. Thisreactor is based on the Russian technology developed forice breakers. According to its developer OKBM, thisreactor could reach regions of Russia not connected to thegrid with industrial or residential power needs(OECD/NEA, 2016). More recently, China has startedinvestigating the possibility for SMRs to provideelectricity for offshore oil and gas drilling platforms, aswell as for islands in the South China Sea(5) .For this market application, a key factor will be theopportunity cost of potential alternatives. This could beconnecting the area to the grid, installing backuptechnologies (such as diesel generators), or intermittentrenewables coupled with storage technologies. In thatrespect, it can also be argued that this market segmentcould be supported by a broader trend in distributedelectricity solution in both OCDE et non­OECDeconomies (IEA, 2016).

Role in a diversified low carbon energy mix

SMRs could provide flexibility services to future energysystems characterized by a large share of intermittentrenewables. An enhanced flexibility of SMRs could beachieved in several ways:

• Through heat production from the secondary circuitthat can be directly used for district heating purposes,desalination of sea water, or industrial processes needs.For instance, the Energies Technology Institute (2015)considers that SMRs operated in cogeneration modecould play an important role in the 2030 UK energysystem, providing low carbon heat for housing whileimproving the economics of SMRs. SMRs may also beeasier to deploy close to urban areas due to high safetystandards (Kessides, 2012), thus limiting investment costsfor building a heat transportation system. With regards toindustrial heat loads, SMRs could be more adequate thanlarge reactors in terms of energy matching (extractionpotential equals heat demand) and construction andlicensing duration in case of the planning of integratedsynergetic systems composed of a SMRs and a specificindustry (Greene et al., 2009). For example, Carlsson et al.(2012) advocate that the largest market potential is inchemical/petroleum, paper, metal, and bioenergymarkets with small capacities (50–250 MWth).

• Through non­electric production during periods of lowelectric demand and/or high generation fromintermittent renewables. In particular, electricity can beconverted to hydrogen through alkaline or hightemperature electrolysis or used for desalination.Supplying these valuable by­products would facilitate

flexible operations of nuclear reactors without impactingreactor load factor. Based on a real option approach,(Locatelli et al., 2015) conclude that coupling a SMR witha desalination plant should be a realistic solution toperform efficient load following.

• Through innovative designs aiming at facilitating directload flexibility. This possibility has been envisioned bycertain SMRs developers such as Nuscale (Ingersoll et al.,2015). Figure 2 illustrates this concept. However, it can benoted that this would to a large extent rely both on theexistence of appropriate market designs in order todeliver high enough scarcity prices during periods of lowrenewable production in order to compensate for lowerload factor and higher operational costs.

Figure 2: Illustrative example of Nuscale SMR load­followingcapabilities Source: Ingersoll et al., 2015

SMR market outlook: Insights from recent studiesand key uncertainties

Existing studies for SMR potential show contrastingresults that underline different visions of the market

A few recent market studies are publically available andshed light on the medium term market potential that canbe envisioned for SMRs. In particular, 4 studies have beenpublished over the last few years: OECD/NEA (2016),NNL (2014), a French SMR Consortium (2013) and UoX(2013).

NEA study (2016)

The NEA study looks at the market outlook by 2035 andconducts two case studies for the development of thistechnology in the US and in Russia. The methodologicalapproach of the NEA is to estimate the share that SMRscould take in forecasted nuclear new build scenarios ofdifferent countries (OECD/NEA, 2014). It takes intoaccount various factors such as the grid development, theexpected penetration of intermittent renewables, andnational nuclear policies. In that respect, it can beconsidered as a bottom up market approach.

Automne 2016 ­ Numéro 29 ­ La lettre de l'I­tésé 19Automne 2016 ­ Numéro 29­ La lettre de l'I­tésé

Eclairages

The installed capacity varies from 850 MWe in the lowdevelopment scenario up to 21 GWe in the highdevelopment scenario. Key development opportunityareas identified are South Asia (with a limited role forChina), the United States, but also countries such as India,Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

NNL study (2014)

The NLL conducted a market study based on a range ofcriteria including geopolitical, economic and technicalfactors following a bottom up approach for key countriesthat is afterward extrapolated for the rest of the worldwith a top down approach. This analysis focuses onbaseload electricity provision to the grid, and explicitlyexcludes off grid and non­electric applications from thescope of the study.

This study relies on a low and a high scenario withregards to the economic competitiveness of SMRs. In thelow scenario, it is assumed that SMRs will not be costcompetitive by the 2035 timeframe. It would lead to aSMR market potential of about 5.2 GWe withdevelopments essentially in selected emerging economies(e.g. Mexico, Indonesia). Conversely, the high scenariomakes the hypothesis that SMRs will be cost competitiveand assumes that the 2035 installed capacity will be of 65­85 GWe. Key market localizations identified in that caseare the US, China, Russia and the UK.

French SMRConsortium (2013)

Between 2012 and 2015, a French SMR Consortium(CEA/AREVA/EDF/DCNS) was set up by the FrenchGovernment in order to investigate the technicalfeasibility and economic potential of developing a FrenchSMR design targeted at the international market (Chenais,2013). The Consortium market study was to a largeextend conducted by I­tésé. The methodological approachdeveloped first a top down market survey followed bycountry specific case studies for key countries accessibleto a French offer.

This study takes into account a range of economic andgeopolitical factors that impact the market potential ofSMR. The economic factors include the expectedcompetitiveness of a 100 €/MWh cost target compared toother baseload power technologies, the constraints relatedto the size of the electricity grid, and the expected needfor new electricity generation capacity. The geopoliticalfactors include countries stands on non­proliferation (i.e.signature of the NPT), economic stability, and publicattitude towards nuclear.

Results show that about 120 SMR modules of 150 MWecould be deployed worldwide by 2035, based on thehypothesis that the 100 €/MWh cost target is achievable.This would represent the construction of about 18 GWe ofSMR capacity. Although the presentation publically

available does not present the key countries where SMRcould be deployed, it does however show that theConsortium expected that a French offer should primarilytarget small nuclear newcomer countries with emergingeconomies (e.g. Chili, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

UxC study (2013)

Finally, the UxC consulting firm conducted its ownassessment of market opportunities in 2013. Although thefull report is not publically available, summarypresentations indicate that this assessment was conductedthrough a top­down approach where SMR market shareis expressed as a percentage of the nuclear new buildoutlook (based on UxC nuclear power outlook). Thisresults in a market penetration of about 6 GWe by 2035 inthe low scenario (1% of nuclear capacity forecast), up to21 GWe in the high scenario (5% of nuclear capacityforecast).

This study foresees that the first market opportunity forSMRs will be baseload power generation to the grid.Flexibility services to the grid through advance loadfollowing or the production of byproducts is consideredas a long term opportunity by 2030.

Figure 3 summarizes the 2035 projected market size ofSMRs studies and compares it with the reference study ofthe WNA (2016) for the overall nuclear new buildpotential.

Figure 3: Benchmarking of recent SMR market studies(2035 timeframe)

From this brief overview of existing market studies a fewimportant conclusions can be drawn. First, these studiesshow contrasting outlooks for SMRs, ranking from lessthan 1 GWe up to more than 65 GWe. This reflects the factthat important uncertainties remain about the scale ofSMRs commercial development.

Second, reviewing these studies highlights that SMRs areoften expected to remain a niche market, ranging from 1to10% of 2035 global nuclear new build, with a few unitsbuilt in a number of advanced and newcomer countries.This geographical dispersion would make it difficult for

La lettre de l'I­tésé ­ Numéro 29 ­ Automne 201620

Eclairages

most countries to start a SMR supply chain, meaning thatinternational consortia may be needed to foster marketdeployment.

Third, these studies underline rather different visions ofSMR market applications: for instance the NEA explicitlyassumes that SMRs have a place for the integration ofrenewables before 2035, whereas UxC expects that thiswill be a longer term opportunity. Up to date, none of thereviewed studies foresee nuclear cogeneration as a keydriver for SMRs development. However, this may changein the future, especially in countries that target asignificant deployment of district heating networks. Forexample, the Energy Technologies Institute (2015)highlights that district heating supplied with nuclearenergy could be an important driver for SMRs in the UK.

Fourth, these studies show contrasting results in terms ofdevelopment opportunity areas. For instance, the NNLpoints out in its high scenario that China would be thelargest market for SMRs (with 15 GWe, 26% of SMRmarket outlook) whereas the NEA reports in its highscenario a limited growth prospect in that country (with 1GWe, 5 % of SMR market outlook). On the other hand,the French Consortium focuses on countries potentiallyaccessible to a French offer and foresees marketopportunities in emerging countries (primarily in South­East Asia).

Table 3 below summarizes the key differences andsimilarities between those three market studies.

Table 3: Summary of market studies key differences andsimilarities

Keys uncertainties for the future development ofSMRs

In order to better understand SMRs potentialdeployment, it is equally important to highlight the keyuncertainties that need to be addressed. In that respect, it

is worth pointing out that previous SMR market outlooksdid not materialize. For instance, Squarer (2006) estimatedthat by 2015 there would be between 18 and 34 SMRreactors built worldwide whereas today only two areunder­construction. Although this change of marketconditions can be attributed to a number of factors thatapply more broadly to the rest of the nuclear industry –such as the Fukushima­Daiichi accident – it also relates tothe fact that SMRs would represent specificorganizational changes for the nuclear industry and itsregulation.

Two broad categories of uncertainties can bedistinguished : (i) those related to the licensing of SMRsand the attitude of safety authorities; and (ii) those relatedto the economics of SMRs.

SMRs require nuclear safety authorities to adapt theirlicensing and regulatory approaches

SMR deployment will require different approaches interms of reactor licensing for which the attitude of nuclearsafety authorities will play a critical role (Sainati et al.,2015). In particular, revisiting the licensing approach ofSMRs could be an opportunity to introduce innovativetechnologies that would improve safety (IAEA, 2016). Forinstance, integrated primary cooling loop for PWR SMRs(as picture below for the Korea SMART reactor coredesign) reduces the chance that a break in the loop wouldresult in the loss of coolant. In addition, intrinsic safetywould be enhanced as the smaller size of the reactormakes the cooled down of the reactor by naturalconvection easier. This could prevent core melt down in asituation where the use of the pumps is not possible.

Example of integrated loop reactor designfor the SMART SMR

Source: KAERI, http://www.kaeri.re.kr:8080/english/

It is envisaged that with enhanced safety SMRs could belocated nearer population with reduced EmergencyPlanning Zones (EPZ). This is a good example of a topicwhere the existing licensing procedures would need to bereviewed as current IAEA guidelines suggest a 5­25 kmradius whereas SMR developers have indicated that theywould like EPZ to be reduced to about 300 meters(Ramana et al., 2013). This might contribute to reduce gridinvestment costs. If cogeneration is also planned, it might

Automne 2016 ­ Numéro 29­ La lettre de l'I­tésé 21

Eclairages

improve the competitiveness of the nuclear heat thanks toshorter heat transportation systems. However, a detailedsafety case for a reduction in EPZ has not beendemonstrated yet.

Another area where licensing procedures might need tobe reviewed is the overall duration of nuclear design andsite licensing procedure(s). Although some countries havemade progress in this area (such as the US where theNRC now delivers a combined design and site license),shorter time to market remains a specific issue for SMR inorder for new projects to adapt to changes in marketconditions, as earlier studies at CEA have shown morethan 10 years ago (Gollier et al., 2005). At the same time,licensing costs may also be an additional challenge,especially if those costs cannot be shared betweendifferent jurisdictions and are of the same order ofmagnitude than for large NPPs. (OECD/NEA, 2016).

Finally, a third example is the sharing of the reactorcontrol room (and so staff costs) between several SMRmodules. Vendors such as Nuscale aim to deploy up to 6modules within one facility. However, importantrestrictions currently exist on this matter. For instance, theUS NRC allows a maximum of two reactors to becontrolled by the same control room (Ramana et al., 2013).

Nuscale SMR 6 module plant configurationSource: Nuscale, http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr­

benefits/economical

Hence, the attitude of safety authorities will play a keyrole for the future development of SMRs as it will impacttime to market and – if not addressed correctly – it maylead to additional direct and indirect safety related costs.In that respect, it is worth pointing out that sameregulatory bodies are taking this into account. Inparticular, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) has indicated that it could consider reviewinglicensing approach for “advanced reactors”, includingSMRs(6).

SMRs still have to prove their economic potential

Uncertainties surrounding economic issues are alsoimportant, and – as noted above – remain partly linked tolicensing and other regulatory issues. In addition, SMRsbusiness models hold important specificities with

modular and serial production leading to additionaluncertainties at this stage of market development.

The first economic uncertainty is related to the dynamicof further developing the nuclear supply chain. Indeed,the factory construction of SMRs modules required tobenefit from series effect implies the construction of adedicated supply chain with upfront investments in afactory line. This could also include a small factory linefor FOAK modules (or construction directly on the site)before moving to a larger facility whose size could play arole on investment costs and will be impacted byexpected market demand.

In addition, previous studies (e.g. Berthélemy andEscobar, 2015) show that learning by doing appears invery specific circumstances during the construction ofnuclear reactors and that economies of scale can play asignificant role through a reduction of lead­time.Although the highly standardized industrial strategyenvisioned by SMRs developers addresses some of thesechallenges, SMRs still have to demonstrate that they willavoid all the pitfalls faced by some larger reactors and areable to fulfil their commitments in terms of delay andconstruction costs in order to overcome diseconomies ofscale.

This implies somewhat radical innovations for thenuclear sector in terms of technology (e.g. integrateddesign), industrial choices (modular fabrication), and/orbusiness model (e.g. value to the electricity mix for theintegration of renewables). If not, investment costs perMWe could largely exceed the cost of reactors in therange of 1000+ MWe.

Furthermore, large uncertainties also remain regardingoperating and maintenance costs. SMRs designs will inmost cases require the development of new nuclear fuelwith sometimes specific characteristics (such asenrichment rate) that could lead to higher fuel costs andcreate supply chain issues. Most designs will also result inless effective fuel utilization (lower burnup) due to thelower efficiency of small reactors. This means that SMRsfuel costs should be generally higher than for largerreactors. They would also be more exposed to a mediumterm increase in uranium price that could occur undercurrent uranium resources estimates (OECD/NEA, 2014).

Finally, flexibility and non­electric application capabilitiesalso add specific economic uncertainties. To a largeextent, these uncertainties are related to the marketenvironment. For example, some liberalized electricitysystems may not fully reflect scarcity during periods ofhigh electricity demand / low renewable generation (IEA,2016) that could deter the economic case for SMRs tooperate in a load following regime.

La lettre de l'I­tésé ­ Numéro 29 ­ Automne 2016La lettre de l'I­tésé ­ Numéro 29 ­ Automne 201622

Eclairages

Conclusions : Important challenges would need tobe addressed for SMRs to reach commercial stage

With a growing interest for SMRs development in severalregions of the world, it is reasonable that the marketoutlook of these technologies has recently received morescrutiny. The review conducted in this paper of existingmarket studies highlighted some important findings thatmay be of interest for energy analysts and policy makers:(i) SMRs could remain a niche market over the next twodecades compared to large NPPs, (ii) these studieshighlight different visions of potential SMRs marketapplications and of development opportunity areas, (iii)important uncertainties exist at this stage early of marketdevelopment.

For the next two decades, even in the high scenarios, themarket share of SMRs should remain less than 10% of theworld nuclear market. The exception is the NLL studywhich appears rather optimistic.

From an industrial policy perspective, it is worth pointingout that a review of key economic and regulatoryuncertainties faced by SMRs suggests that a number ofthose can be addressed with the deployment of FOAKreactors. This represents large potential learningspillovers that create an economic rationale for publicintervention (including subsidies) to support a SMRdemonstration programs. This is typically the approachfollowed by the US DOE that supports of Nuscale towardthe licensing of a FOAK plant.

Market studies also highlight in their high scenariosdeployment opportunities in a large number of countries.Given the large number of SMR vendors relative tomarket size and geographical dispersion, the firstdeployment stage may also need to promote aconsolidation of (international) SMR consortia.Interestingly, this is the approach followed by theongoing UK SMR competition which could then benefitmarket development in other countries.

Finally, learning effects can also exist for large nuclearreactors with the right industrial and market structureand also benefit from economies of scale (Berthélemy andEscobar, 2015). Hence, although commercial argumentsused by SMR vendors can sometime refer to recent costsoverruns of FOAK Gen­III reactors, analyzing theliterature showed that SMRs are not expected to competewith large NPPs but rather to extend nuclear use to newmarket applications.

(1) See the IAEA webpages on SMR technologies:https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/SMR/index.html(2) For instance, the Generation IV International Forum roadmap (GIF,2013) anticipates that Gen­IV systems will start to reach demonstrationstage around 2030, which is the time horizon for commercial deployment ofexisting SMR market studies dealing with LWR SMRs.(3) Word Nuclear News (11 August 2016) , see : http://www.world­nuclear­news.org/NN­Preferred­site­chosen­for­NuScale­SMR­1108167.html(4) Platts (26 July 2016), see : Baseload electricity provision; remote areas;role in a low carbon mix(5) World Nuclear News (15 January 2016), see: http://www.world­nuclear­news.org/NN­CNNC­to­construct­prototype­floating­plant­1501164.html(6) For instance, the NRC maintains a webpage on “Small Modular Reactor(SMR) and Advanced Non­Light Water Reactor (LWR) Technical andPolicy Issues”, see: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/smr­adv­non­lwr­tech­policy­issues.html

Bibliography

­ Berthélemy, M. and Escobar, L. (2015), Nuclear reactors'construction costs: The role of lead­time, standardization andtechnological progress, Energy Policy, Vol. 82, pp. 118–130.­ Carelli, M.D., Petrovic, B., Mycoff, C.W., Trueco, P., Ricotti,M.E. and Locatelli, G. (2008), “Smaller sized reactors can beeconomically attractive”, Proceedings of the ICAPP 2007International Conference, Vol. 5, pp. 3140–3145.­ Carlsson, J., Shropshire, D.E., van Heek, A., Fütterer, M.A.(2012), Economic viability of small nuclear reactors in futureEuropean cogeneration markets. Energy Policy, Vol. 43, pp.396–406. Energy Technologies Institute (2015), The role fornuclear within a low carbon energy system, ETI report.­ Chenais, J. (2013), Les SMRs: l’approche française par leconsortium SMR, Proceedings of the SFEN Conference: Lesréacteurs nucléaires de demain (5­6 December 2013).­ Generation IV International Forum (2013), TechnologyRoadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,GIF Report.­ Gollier, C., Proult, D., Thais, F. and Walgenwitz, G. (2005),Choice of nuclear power investments under price uncertainty:Valuing modularity, Energy Economics, Vol. 27 (4), pp. 667­685.­ Greene, S.R., Flanagan, G.F. and Borole, A.P., (2009),Integration of Biorefineries and Nuclear Cogeneration PowerPlants ­ a Preliminary Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL) TM­2008/102.­ IAEA (2016); Design Safety Considerations for Water CooledSmall Modular Reactors Incorporating Lessons Learned fromthe Fukushima Daiichi Accident, IAEA TECDOC No. 1785.­ IEA (2016), Re­powering Markets Market design andregulation during the transition to low­carbon power systems,IEA Electricity Market Series.­ Ingersoll, D.T., Colbert, C., Houghton, Z., Snuggerud, R.,Gaston, J.W., and Empey, M. (2015), Can Nuclear Power andRenewables be Friends?, Proceedings of ICAPP 2015, Nice,France.­ Kessides, I.N., (2012), The future of the nuclear industryreconsidered: Risks, uncertainties, and continued promise,Energy Policy, 48: 185–208.­ Locatelli, G., Bingham, C. and Mancini, M. (2014), “Smallmodular reactors: A comprehensive overview of theireconomics and strategic aspects”, Progress in Nuclear Energy,Vol 73, pp. 75–85.­ Locatelli, G., Boarin, S., Pellegrino, F., Ricotti, M.E., 2015. Load

Automne 2016 ­ Numéro 29­ La lettre de l'I­tésé 23

Eclairages

following with Small Modular Reactors (SMR): A real optionsanalysis, Energy, Vol. 80, pp. 41–54.­ NNL (2014), Small Modular Reactors (SMR) – FeasibilityStudy, NNL report.­ OECD/NEA (2011), Current Status, Technical Feasibility andEconomics of Small Nuclear Reactors, OECD, Paris.­ OECD/NEA (2014), Uranium 2014: Resources, Production andDemand, OECD, Paris.­ OECD/NEA (2016), Small Nuclear Reactors: Nuclear EnergyMarket Potential for Near­Term Deployment, OECD, Paris.­ Ramana, M.V., Hopkins, L.B., and Glaser, A. (2013), Licensingsmall modular reactors, Energy, Vol. 61 (1), pp. 555­564.­ Sainati, T., Locatelli, G. and Brookes, N. (2015), “Small ModularReactors: Licensing constraints and the way forward”, Energy,Vol. 82, pp. 1092–1095.Squarer, A. (2006), Potential of Small and Medium sizedReactors (SMR) to support the GNEP vision, Advanced SystemsTechnology and Management, Inc. report.­ UoX (2013), SMR market outlook and deployment prospects,Presentation at the 4th annual Platts SMR conference.­ WNA (2016), The World Nuclear Supply Chain: Outlook 2035,WNA Report.