It is well known that electrical-power generation plays the key role in advances in industry, agriculture, technology, and standard of living. Also, strong power industry with diverse energy sources is very important for a country's independence. In general, electrical energy can be mainly generated from: (1) nonrenewable energy sources (75.5% of the total electricity generation) such as coal (38.3%), natural gas (23.1%), oil (3.7%), and nuclear (10.4%); and (2) renewable energy sources (24.5%) such as hydro, biomass, wind, geothermal, solar, and marine power. Today, the main sources for electrical-energy generation are: (1) thermal power (61.4%)—primarily using coal and secondarily using natural gas; (2) “large” hydro-electric plants (16.6%); and (3) nuclear power (10.4%). The balance of the energy sources (11.6%) is from using oil, biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar, and has visible impact just in a few countries. This paper presents the current status of electricity generation in the world, various sources of industrial electricity generation and role of nuclear power with a comparison of nuclear-energy systems to other energy systems. A comparison of the latest data on electricity generation with those several years old shows that world usage of coal, gas, nuclear, and oil has decreased by 1–2%, but usage of renewables has increased by 1% for hydro and 2% for other renewable sources. Unfortunately, within last years, electricity generation with nuclear power has decreased from 14% before the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) severe accident in March 2011 to about 10%. Therefore, it is important to evaluate current status of nuclear-power industry and to make projections on near (5–10 yr) and far away (10–25 yr and beyond) future trends.

Statistics on Electricity Generation in the World and Selected Countries

This paper is a logical continuation of our previous publications on this topic [14]. It is well known that electricity generation and consumption are the key factors for advances in industry, agriculture, technology, and standard of living (see Figs. 14 and Tables 1 and 21 (in the Appendix)). Also, strong power industry with diverse energy sources is very important for a country's independence. In general, electricity (see Fig. 3) can be mainly generated from: (1) nonrenewable energy sources such as coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear and (2) renewable energy sources such as hydro, biomass, wind, geothermal, solar, and marine power.

Fig. 1
Impact of electrical-energy consumption (EEC) on human development index (HDI) for all countries of the world (based on data from the Appendix: graph with all countries in the world are shown, but only selected countries are identified). This graph shows clearly strong dependence of HDI from EEC.
Fig. 1
Impact of electrical-energy consumption (EEC) on human development index (HDI) for all countries of the world (based on data from the Appendix: graph with all countries in the world are shown, but only selected countries are identified). This graph shows clearly strong dependence of HDI from EEC.
Fig. 2
This composite image showing a global view of Earth at night, was compiled from over 400 satellite images. Lights in image show density of population and EEC. Credit: NASA/NOAA. Last updated: Aug. 4, 2017 [5].
Fig. 2
This composite image showing a global view of Earth at night, was compiled from over 400 satellite images. Lights in image show density of population and EEC. Credit: NASA/NOAA. Last updated: Aug. 4, 2017 [5].
Fig. 3
Electricity generation in the world and selected countries by source (data presented here just for reference purposes): population from Ref. [6] (data for 2018); EEC from Ref. [7] (data mainly from 2017 to 2015; for exact details see the reference); and HDI from Ref. [8] (data from 2017); data in diagrams from 2016: World from Ref. [9]; China, USA, and Germany from Ref. [10]: (a) World: population 7659 million (Oct. 19, 2018); EEC 24,816 TW·h per year or 372 W per capita; HDI 0.728 or HDI Rank 98. (b) China: population 1415 million; EEC 5920 TW·h per year or 510 W per capita; HDI 0.738 or HDI Rank 86. (c) India: population 1354million;EEC 1048 TW·h per year or 114 W per capita; HDI 0.640 or HDIRank 130. (d)USA: population 327 million; EEC 3,911 TW·h per year or 1377 W per capita; HDI 0.924 or HDI Rank 13. (e) Germany: population 82 million; EEC 515 TW·h per year or 753 W per capita; HDI 0.936 or HDI Rank 5. (f) UK: population 67 million; EEC 302 TW·h per year or 547 W per capita; HDI 0.922 or HDI Rank 14. (g) Russia: population 144 million; EEC 890 TW·h per year or 854 W per capita; HDI 0.816 or HDI Rank 49. (h) Italy: population 59 million; EEC 296 TW·h year or 535 W per capita; HDI 0.880 or HDI Rank 28. (i) Brazil: population 211 million; EEC 461 TW·h per year or 287 W per capita; HDI 0.759 or HDI Rank 79. (j) Canada: population 37 million; EEC 517 TW h per year or 1704 W per capita; HDI 0.926 or HDI Rank 12. (k)Ukraine: population 44 million; EEC 133 TW·h per year or 369 W per capita; HDI 0.751 or HDI Rank 88. (l) France: population 65 million; EEC 436 TW·h per year or 736 W per capita; HDI 0.901 or HDI Rank 24.
Fig. 3
Electricity generation in the world and selected countries by source (data presented here just for reference purposes): population from Ref. [6] (data for 2018); EEC from Ref. [7] (data mainly from 2017 to 2015; for exact details see the reference); and HDI from Ref. [8] (data from 2017); data in diagrams from 2016: World from Ref. [9]; China, USA, and Germany from Ref. [10]: (a) World: population 7659 million (Oct. 19, 2018); EEC 24,816 TW·h per year or 372 W per capita; HDI 0.728 or HDI Rank 98. (b) China: population 1415 million; EEC 5920 TW·h per year or 510 W per capita; HDI 0.738 or HDI Rank 86. (c) India: population 1354million;EEC 1048 TW·h per year or 114 W per capita; HDI 0.640 or HDIRank 130. (d)USA: population 327 million; EEC 3,911 TW·h per year or 1377 W per capita; HDI 0.924 or HDI Rank 13. (e) Germany: population 82 million; EEC 515 TW·h per year or 753 W per capita; HDI 0.936 or HDI Rank 5. (f) UK: population 67 million; EEC 302 TW·h per year or 547 W per capita; HDI 0.922 or HDI Rank 14. (g) Russia: population 144 million; EEC 890 TW·h per year or 854 W per capita; HDI 0.816 or HDI Rank 49. (h) Italy: population 59 million; EEC 296 TW·h year or 535 W per capita; HDI 0.880 or HDI Rank 28. (i) Brazil: population 211 million; EEC 461 TW·h per year or 287 W per capita; HDI 0.759 or HDI Rank 79. (j) Canada: population 37 million; EEC 517 TW h per year or 1704 W per capita; HDI 0.926 or HDI Rank 12. (k)Ukraine: population 44 million; EEC 133 TW·h per year or 369 W per capita; HDI 0.751 or HDI Rank 88. (l) France: population 65 million; EEC 436 TW·h per year or 736 W per capita; HDI 0.901 or HDI Rank 24.
Fig. 4
Electricity generation in UK by source (data presented here just for reference purposes): Data in diagrams for 2015–2017 [11–13] (a) UK Q3 2015, (b) UK Q3 2016, (c) UK Q3 2017 (all renewables 30%), (d) UK Jan. 16–22, 2017: population 67 million; EEC 302 TW·h/yr or 547 W per capita; HDI 0.922 or HDI Rank 14
Fig. 4
Electricity generation in UK by source (data presented here just for reference purposes): Data in diagrams for 2015–2017 [11–13] (a) UK Q3 2015, (b) UK Q3 2016, (c) UK Q3 2017 (all renewables 30%), (d) UK Jan. 16–22, 2017: population 67 million; EEC 302 TW·h/yr or 547 W per capita; HDI 0.922 or HDI Rank 14
Fig. 5
Aerial view of the largest NPP in the world—6384-MWel Bruce NPP (courtesy of Bruce NPP1). (The Douglas Point NPP was Canada's first full-scale NPP and the second CANDU reactor. Its success was a major milestone for Canada to enter into global nuclear-power scene. Construction began on Feb. 1, 1960 and decommission date: May 4, 1984.)
Fig. 5
Aerial view of the largest NPP in the world—6384-MWel Bruce NPP (courtesy of Bruce NPP1). (The Douglas Point NPP was Canada's first full-scale NPP and the second CANDU reactor. Its success was a major milestone for Canada to enter into global nuclear-power scene. Construction began on Feb. 1, 1960 and decommission date: May 4, 1984.)
Table 1

Population, EEC and HDI in selected countries

EECb (2015-2017)
HDIa rank (2017)CountryHDIa (2017)W/capitaGW·hPopulation in millions (2018)
Very high HDI
 1Norway0.9532740133,1005.35
 2Switzerland0.94480958,4508.54
 3Australia0.9391112223,60024.77
 4Ireland0.93857623,7904.80
 5Germany0.936753514,60082.29
 6Iceland0.935577717,9800.34
 8Sweden0.9331467125,4009.98
 12Canada0.9261704516,60036.95
 13USA0.92413773,911,000326.76
 14UK0.922547301,60066.57
 19Japan0.909841933,600127.18
 23South Korea0.9031109497,00051.16
 24France0.901736436,10065.23
 34United Arab Emirates (UAE)0.8631848110,6009.54
 40Saudi Arabia0.8531102292,80033.55
 49Russia0.816854890,100143.96
 56Kuwait0.803217654,1104.19
High HDI
 60Iran0.798300220,90082.01
 64Turkey0.791294213,20081.91
 74Mexico0.774220245,200130.76
 78Venezuela0.76128873,99032.38
 79Brazil0.759287460,800210.86
 86China0.7525105,920,0001415.05
 88Ukraine0.751369133,40044.01
World0.72837024,816,0007658.82
Medium HDI
 114South Africa0.699445207,70057.40
 130India0.6401281,048,0001354.05
 137Republic of Congo0.606139015.40
 150Pakistan0.5624685,900200.81
Low HDI
 158Rwanda0.524464412.50
 161Madagascar0.5196110826.26
 162Uganda0.5168293644.27
 168Haiti0.498437211.11
 169Afghanistan0.49816286636.37
 173Ethiopia0.46378143107.53
 177Guinea-Bissau0.4552321.91
 179Eritrea0.44053305.18
 184Sierra Leone0.41931637.72
 185Burundi0.417430411.21
 186Chad0.404120015.35
 187South Sudan0.388669412.91
 188Central African Republic0.36741624.73
 189Niger0.3547107222.31
EECb (2015-2017)
HDIa rank (2017)CountryHDIa (2017)W/capitaGW·hPopulation in millions (2018)
Very high HDI
 1Norway0.9532740133,1005.35
 2Switzerland0.94480958,4508.54
 3Australia0.9391112223,60024.77
 4Ireland0.93857623,7904.80
 5Germany0.936753514,60082.29
 6Iceland0.935577717,9800.34
 8Sweden0.9331467125,4009.98
 12Canada0.9261704516,60036.95
 13USA0.92413773,911,000326.76
 14UK0.922547301,60066.57
 19Japan0.909841933,600127.18
 23South Korea0.9031109497,00051.16
 24France0.901736436,10065.23
 34United Arab Emirates (UAE)0.8631848110,6009.54
 40Saudi Arabia0.8531102292,80033.55
 49Russia0.816854890,100143.96
 56Kuwait0.803217654,1104.19
High HDI
 60Iran0.798300220,90082.01
 64Turkey0.791294213,20081.91
 74Mexico0.774220245,200130.76
 78Venezuela0.76128873,99032.38
 79Brazil0.759287460,800210.86
 86China0.7525105,920,0001415.05
 88Ukraine0.751369133,40044.01
World0.72837024,816,0007658.82
Medium HDI
 114South Africa0.699445207,70057.40
 130India0.6401281,048,0001354.05
 137Republic of Congo0.606139015.40
 150Pakistan0.5624685,900200.81
Low HDI
 158Rwanda0.524464412.50
 161Madagascar0.5196110826.26
 162Uganda0.5168293644.27
 168Haiti0.498437211.11
 169Afghanistan0.49816286636.37
 173Ethiopia0.46378143107.53
 177Guinea-Bissau0.4552321.91
 179Eritrea0.44053305.18
 184Sierra Leone0.41931637.72
 185Burundi0.417430411.21
 186Chad0.404120015.35
 187South Sudan0.388669412.91
 188Central African Republic0.36741624.73
 189Niger0.3547107222.31
a

HDI—Human Development Index by United Nations (UN); HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. HDI is calculated by the following formula: HDI=LEI×EI×II3, where LEI—Life Expectancy Index, EI—Education Index, and II—Income Index. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an underdeveloped, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

b

EEC,Wcapita=EEC,(GWh/yr)×(109/(365days×24h))(population,millions)×106; EEC compares the total electricity generated annually plus imports and minus exports, expressed in gigawatt-hours (GW·h).

Note: Population from Ref. [6] (data for 2018); EEC from Ref. [7] (data mainly from 2017 to 2015; for exact details see the reference); and HDI from Ref. [8] (data from 2017). Data for all countries in the world are listed in the Appendix, Table 21.

Today, the main sources for global electrical-energy generation (see Fig. 3(a)) are: (1) thermal power—primarily using coal (38.3%) and secondarily using natural gas (23.1%); (2) “large” hydro-electric plants (16.6%); and (3) nuclear power (10.4%). The last 11.6% of the electrical energy is generated using oil (3.7%), and the remainder (7.9%)—from biomass, geothermal, and intermittent wind, solar, and marine energy. Main sources for electrical-energy generation in selected countries are also shown in Figs. 3(b)(l) and 4.

A selected comparison of the data in Fig. 3 with those data (mainly related to 2013 or even earlier) presented in our previous publication from 2016 [1] shows that:

  1. (1)

    World usage of coal, gas, nuclear, and oil has decreased by 1–2%. Usage of renewables has increased by 1% for hydro and 2% for other renewable sources (Fig. 3(a)). However, these changes are not so significant within a number of years.

  2. (2)

    China has significantly decreased usage of coal for electricity generation from 80% to 65%; and increased usage of hydro power from 15% to 20%, gas from 1% to 3%, nuclear from 2% to 4%, wind from 0% to 4%, and solar from 0% to 1%, which is a very good trend, i.e., decreasing usage of “dirty” coal for electricity generation (Fig. 3(b)).

  3. (3)

    The U.S. have decreased usage of coal from 39% to 30%; increased usage of gas from 28% to 34%; nuclear, hydro power, and other renewables are approximately on the same level, i.e., 20%; 7%, and 7%, respectively, which is also a good trend (Fig. 3(d)).

  4. (4)

    Russia has increased usage of gas for electricity generation from 49% to 59%, nuclear from 17% to 19%, and hydro power from 16% to 17% (Fig. 3(g)). Due to these increases, the usage of coal has substantially decreased from 16% to less than 5%.

  5. (5)

    Germany has visibly decreased usage of coal for electricity generation from 47% to 37%; however, at the same time, the usage of nuclear power was also decreased from 16% to 12% (Fig. 3(e)). This drop in electricity generation was mainly compensated with wind power, which was increased from 8% to 16% (onshore wind farms—13.3% and off-shore—2.8%), gas from 11% to 13%, and solar up to 4% increase.

  6. (6)

    The United Kingdom has significantly decreased their usage of coal for electricity generation from 17 to 3% within 2015–2017 (Fig. 3(f); also, more detailed comparison, based on data for Q3 per each year, is shown in Figs. 4(a)4(c)). The usage of coal was substituted mainly with gas, and, partially, with nuclear and renewables. However, in January 2017 quite unusual events have happened, which affected significantly the electricity generation from various sources (Fig. 4(d)). At that time, the UK grid faced a “perfect storm,” which co-inside with a temporary shutdown of a number of NPPs in France, nuclear trips in the UK, and a broken interconnector with France. On the top of that, on Jan. 16, 2017, wind diminished for the whole week. These special and unexpected conditions could definitely lead to a complete blackout. However, gas- and coal-fired power plants have saved the grid (usage of gas for electricity generation has increased by ∼11% and of coal—by ∼15%).

  7. (7)

    France has not significantly changed their usage of various sources for electricity generation (Fig. 3(l)) over the same period.

Therefore, considering fast changes in climate, possible catastrophic events such as powerful hurricanes, melting ice-caps in mountains, and changes in solar activity, countries should not rely on unreliable renewable sources such as hydro, wind, solar, and marine unless there is a significant backup with reliable energy source(s) independent of Mother Nature (in the case of UK there were thermal power plants and NPPs).

Just for comparison purposes, Table 2 lists 20 largest power plants of the world by installed capacity, and Table 3 lists largest operating power plants of the world by energy source, based on installed capacity.

Table 2

Twenty largest power plants of the world by installed capacity [2]

No.PlantCountryCapacity MWelAverage annual generation TW·hyearCapacity factor %Plant type
1Three Gorges DamaChina22,50093.5201647Hydro
2Itaipu DamaBrazil/Paraguay14,000103.1201684Hydro
3XiluoduaChina13,86055.2201546Hydro
4Guri DamVenezuela10,23547average52Hydro
5Tucurui DamBrazil837021.4199929Hydro
6Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (not in service)Japan7965(60.31999)(86)Nuclear
7Robert-Bourassa DamCanada772226.5average39Hydro
8Grand Coulee DamUSA680920.2average34Hydro
9XiangjiabaChina644830.7201554Hydro
10Longtan DamChina642617.3201531Hydro
11Sayano-ShushenskayaRussia640026.9201648Hydro
12Bruce (Fig. 5)Canada638447.6201585Nuclear
13KoriSouth Korea604039.3201574Hydro
14Krasnoyarsk DamRussia600018.4average35Hydro
15HanulSouth Korea592848.293Nuclear
16HanbitSouth Korea587547.693Nuclear
17Nuozhadu DamChina585023.9estimate47Hydro
18ZaporizhiaUkraine570048.296Nuclear
19KashimaJapan5660Fuel oil, natural gas
20ShoaibaSaudi Arabia5600Fuel oil
No.PlantCountryCapacity MWelAverage annual generation TW·hyearCapacity factor %Plant type
1Three Gorges DamaChina22,50093.5201647Hydro
2Itaipu DamaBrazil/Paraguay14,000103.1201684Hydro
3XiluoduaChina13,86055.2201546Hydro
4Guri DamVenezuela10,23547average52Hydro
5Tucurui DamBrazil837021.4199929Hydro
6Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (not in service)Japan7965(60.31999)(86)Nuclear
7Robert-Bourassa DamCanada772226.5average39Hydro
8Grand Coulee DamUSA680920.2average34Hydro
9XiangjiabaChina644830.7201554Hydro
10Longtan DamChina642617.3201531Hydro
11Sayano-ShushenskayaRussia640026.9201648Hydro
12Bruce (Fig. 5)Canada638447.6201585Nuclear
13KoriSouth Korea604039.3201574Hydro
14Krasnoyarsk DamRussia600018.4average35Hydro
15HanulSouth Korea592848.293Nuclear
16HanbitSouth Korea587547.693Nuclear
17Nuozhadu DamChina585023.9estimate47Hydro
18ZaporizhiaUkraine570048.296Nuclear
19KashimaJapan5660Fuel oil, natural gas
20ShoaibaSaudi Arabia5600Fuel oil
a

It should be noted that, currently, the largest under construction power plants are hydroelectric ones—Baihetan Dam (16,000 MWel) in China and Belo Monte Dam (11,233 MWel) in Brazil. Also, there are two known in the world proposals for future power plants: (1) Grand Inga Dam in Democratic Republic of Congo with possible maximum installed capacity of 39,000 MWel and (2) Penzhin Tidal Power Plant Project in Russia with possible maximum installed capacity of 87,000 MWel.

Table 3

Largest operating power plants of the world (based on installed capacity) by energy source [2]

RankPlantCountryCapacity MWelPlant type
1Three Gorges DamChina22,500Hydro (dam)
2Bruce NPP (Fig. 5)Canada6384Nuclear
3TaichungTaiwan5780Coal
4ShoaibaSouth Arabia5600Fuel oil
5Surgut-2aRussia5597Natural gas
6GansuChina5160Wind (onshore)
7JirauBrazil3750Hydro (run-of-the-river)
8Bath CountybUSA3003Hydro (pumped storage)
9EestiEstonia1615Oil shale
10Tengger Desert Solar ParkChina1547Solar (flat panel photovoltaic)
11The GeysersUSA1517Geothermal
12ShaturaaRussia1500Peata
13IronbridgeUK740Biofuela
14WalneyUK659Wind (offshore)
15IPP3aJordan573Internal combustion engines
16IvanpahUSA377Solar (concentrated thermal)
17Sihwa LakeSouth Korea254Tidal
18Vasavi Basin BridgeIndia200Diesel
19Golmud 2China60Concentrated photovoltaic
20SotenäsSweden3Marine (wave)
RankPlantCountryCapacity MWelPlant type
1Three Gorges DamChina22,500Hydro (dam)
2Bruce NPP (Fig. 5)Canada6384Nuclear
3TaichungTaiwan5780Coal
4ShoaibaSouth Arabia5600Fuel oil
5Surgut-2aRussia5597Natural gas
6GansuChina5160Wind (onshore)
7JirauBrazil3750Hydro (run-of-the-river)
8Bath CountybUSA3003Hydro (pumped storage)
9EestiEstonia1615Oil shale
10Tengger Desert Solar ParkChina1547Solar (flat panel photovoltaic)
11The GeysersUSA1517Geothermal
12ShaturaaRussia1500Peata
13IronbridgeUK740Biofuela
14WalneyUK659Wind (offshore)
15IPP3aJordan573Internal combustion engines
16IvanpahUSA377Solar (concentrated thermal)
17Sihwa LakeSouth Korea254Tidal
18Vasavi Basin BridgeIndia200Diesel
19Golmud 2China60Concentrated photovoltaic
20SotenäsSweden3Marine (wave)
a

It should be noted that actually, some thermal power plants use multifuel options, for example, Surgut-2 (15% natural gas); Shatura (peat—11.5%, natural gas—78%, fuel oil—6.8%, and coal—3.7%) power plants.

b

Pumped-storage hydro-electricity, or pumped hydro-electric energy storage, is a type of hydro-electric power plant used by electric grids for load balancing. During off-peak hours (or during periods of lower electricity prices), usually at night, water is pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation one. During peak hours (or periods of high electricity prices), the plant is used as a regular hydro-electricity plant. It should be noted that such plants usually consume energy overall, but the plant increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest).

Two very important parameters [1,3] of a power plant are:

  1. (1)

    Overall (gross) or net efficiency (see Table 4): Gross efficiency of a unit during a given period of time is the ratio of the gross electrical energy generated by a unit to the energy consumed during the same period by the same unit. The difference between gross and net efficiencies is an internal need for electrical energy of a power plant, which might be not so small (5% or even more).

  2. (2)

    Capacity factor of a plant: Net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time (usually, during a year) and its potential output, if it had operated at a full nameplate capacity the entire time. To calculate the capacity factor, the total amount of energy a plant produced during a period of time should be divided by the amount of energy the plant would have produced at the full capacity. Capacity factors vary significantly depending on the type of a plant (see Table 5). Average capacity factors of the largest power plants in the world are listed in Table 2.

Table 4

Typical ranges of thermal efficiencies (gross) of modern thermal and NPPs [1]

No.Power plantGross thermal efficiency
1Combined-cycle power plant (combination of Brayton gas-turbine cycle (fuel—natural gas or liquefied natural gas (LNG); combustion-products parameters at the gas-turbine inlet: Pin ≈ 2.5 MPa, Tin ≈ 1650 °C) and Rankine steam-turbine cycle (steam parameters at the turbine inlet: Pin ≈ 12.5 MPa (Pcr = 22.064 MPa), Tin ≈ 620 °C (Tcr = 374 °C))Up to 62%
2Supercritical-pressure coal-fired power plant (Rankine-cycle steam inlet turbine parameters: Pin ≈ 25–38 MPa (Pcr = 22.064 MPa), Tin ≈ 540-625 °C (Tcr = 374 °C; and Preheat ≈ 4–6 MPa, Treheat ≈ 540-625 °C)Up to 55%
3Internal-combustion-engine generators (diesel cycle and Otto cycle with natural gas as a fuel)Up to 50%
4Subcritical-pressure coal-fired power plant (older plants; Rankine-cycle steam: Pin = 17 MPa, Tin = 540 °C (Tcr = 374 °C; and Preheat ≈ 3–5 MPa, Treheat = 540 °C)Up to 43%
5Carbon-dioxide-cooled reactor NPP (generation-III) (reactor coolant: P = 4 MPa, T = 290–650 °C; and steam: Pin = 17 MPa (Tsat = 352 °C) and Tin = 560 °C; and Preheat ≈ 4 MPa, Treheat = 560 °C)Up to 42%
6Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) (BN-600/BN-800) NPP (steam: Pin = 14.2 MPa (Tsat = 338 °C), Tin = 505 °C; and Preheat ≈ 2.5 MPa, Treheat = 505 °C)Up to 40%
7Pressurized-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III+) (reactor coolant: P = 15.5 MPa, Tout = 327 °C; steam: Pin = 7.8 MPa, Tin = 293 °C; and Preheat ≈ 2 MPa, Treheat ≈ 265 °C)Up to 36-38%
8Pressurized-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III, current fleet) (reactor coolant: P = 15.5 MPa, Tout = 292–329 °C; steam: Pin = 6.9 MPa, Tin = 285 °C); and Preheat ≈ 1.5 MPa, Treheat ≈ 255 °C)Up to 34-36%
9Boiling-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III, current fleet) (Pin = 7.2 MPa, Tin = 288 °C); and Preheat ≈ 1.7 MPa, Treheat ≈ 258 °C)Up to 34%
10Pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) NPP (generation-III, current fleet) (reactor coolant: P = 11 MPa and T = 260–310 °C; steam: Pin = 4.7 MPa, Tin = 260 °C; and Preheat ≈ 0.6 MPa, Treheat ≈ 250 °C)Up to 32%
11Concentrated solar thermal power plants with heliostats, solar receiver (heat exchanger) on a tower, and molten-salt heat-storage system. Molten salt maximum temperature is ∼565 °C. Subcritical-pressure Rankine-steam-turbine power cycle used.Up to 20%
No.Power plantGross thermal efficiency
1Combined-cycle power plant (combination of Brayton gas-turbine cycle (fuel—natural gas or liquefied natural gas (LNG); combustion-products parameters at the gas-turbine inlet: Pin ≈ 2.5 MPa, Tin ≈ 1650 °C) and Rankine steam-turbine cycle (steam parameters at the turbine inlet: Pin ≈ 12.5 MPa (Pcr = 22.064 MPa), Tin ≈ 620 °C (Tcr = 374 °C))Up to 62%
2Supercritical-pressure coal-fired power plant (Rankine-cycle steam inlet turbine parameters: Pin ≈ 25–38 MPa (Pcr = 22.064 MPa), Tin ≈ 540-625 °C (Tcr = 374 °C; and Preheat ≈ 4–6 MPa, Treheat ≈ 540-625 °C)Up to 55%
3Internal-combustion-engine generators (diesel cycle and Otto cycle with natural gas as a fuel)Up to 50%
4Subcritical-pressure coal-fired power plant (older plants; Rankine-cycle steam: Pin = 17 MPa, Tin = 540 °C (Tcr = 374 °C; and Preheat ≈ 3–5 MPa, Treheat = 540 °C)Up to 43%
5Carbon-dioxide-cooled reactor NPP (generation-III) (reactor coolant: P = 4 MPa, T = 290–650 °C; and steam: Pin = 17 MPa (Tsat = 352 °C) and Tin = 560 °C; and Preheat ≈ 4 MPa, Treheat = 560 °C)Up to 42%
6Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) (BN-600/BN-800) NPP (steam: Pin = 14.2 MPa (Tsat = 338 °C), Tin = 505 °C; and Preheat ≈ 2.5 MPa, Treheat = 505 °C)Up to 40%
7Pressurized-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III+) (reactor coolant: P = 15.5 MPa, Tout = 327 °C; steam: Pin = 7.8 MPa, Tin = 293 °C; and Preheat ≈ 2 MPa, Treheat ≈ 265 °C)Up to 36-38%
8Pressurized-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III, current fleet) (reactor coolant: P = 15.5 MPa, Tout = 292–329 °C; steam: Pin = 6.9 MPa, Tin = 285 °C); and Preheat ≈ 1.5 MPa, Treheat ≈ 255 °C)Up to 34-36%
9Boiling-water-reactor NPP (Generation-III, current fleet) (Pin = 7.2 MPa, Tin = 288 °C); and Preheat ≈ 1.7 MPa, Treheat ≈ 258 °C)Up to 34%
10Pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) NPP (generation-III, current fleet) (reactor coolant: P = 11 MPa and T = 260–310 °C; steam: Pin = 4.7 MPa, Tin = 260 °C; and Preheat ≈ 0.6 MPa, Treheat ≈ 250 °C)Up to 32%
11Concentrated solar thermal power plants with heliostats, solar receiver (heat exchanger) on a tower, and molten-salt heat-storage system. Molten salt maximum temperature is ∼565 °C. Subcritical-pressure Rankine-steam-turbine power cycle used.Up to 20%
Table 5

Average (typical) capacity factors of various power plants (for the U.S. data, see [14])

No.Power plant typeLocationYearCapacity factor, %
1NuclearUSA201792
Russia201481
UK201575
World201781
2GeothermalUSA201776
3BioenergyUSA201751–71
4Combined cycleUSA201755
5Coal firedUSA201754
6HydroelectricUSA201745
World (average)2011–2013∼45
7WindUSA201737
World2011–201320–40
8Concentrated solar thermalUSA201722
Spain (molten salt with storage)201463
9Photovoltaic solarUSA201727
UK201512
10WaveUK20153
No.Power plant typeLocationYearCapacity factor, %
1NuclearUSA201792
Russia201481
UK201575
World201781
2GeothermalUSA201776
3BioenergyUSA201751–71
4Combined cycleUSA201755
5Coal firedUSA201754
6HydroelectricUSA201745
World (average)2011–2013∼45
7WindUSA201737
World2011–201320–40
8Concentrated solar thermalUSA201722
Spain (molten salt with storage)201463
9Photovoltaic solarUSA201727
UK201512
10WaveUK20153

How various energy sources generate electricity in a grid can be illustrated based on the Province of Ontario (Canada) system. Currently, the Province of Ontario (Canada) has completely eliminated coal-fired power plants from its electrical grid. Some of them were closed, others—converted to natural gas. Figure 6(a) shows installed capacity, and Fig. 6(b) shows electricity generation by energy source in the Province of Ontario (Canada) in 2015. Analysis of Fig. 6(a) shows that in Ontario major installed capacities in 2015 were nuclear (38%), gas (29%), hydro (25%), and renewables (mainly wind) (8%). However, electricity (see Fig. 6(b)) was mainly generated by nuclear (60%), hydro (24%), natural gas (8.7%), and renewables (mainly wind) (4.9%).

Fig. 6
Installed capacity (a) and electricity generation (b) by energy source in Ontario (Canada) (population ∼13 million people), 2014–2015 (based on data from Ontario Energy Board [16] and Ontario Energy Report [2,17]
Fig. 6
Installed capacity (a) and electricity generation (b) by energy source in Ontario (Canada) (population ∼13 million people), 2014–2015 (based on data from Ontario Energy Board [16] and Ontario Energy Report [2,17]

As a result, Ontario has committed to a massive $25B refurbishment and multiyear life extension of its existing NPPs, on the grounds that “There are currently no alternative generation portfolios that could provide the same supply of low emissions baseload electricity generation at a comparable price to the Nuclear Refurbishment Plan.” (Ontario Financial Accountability Office, “Nuclear Refurbishment Report,” Nov. 21, 2017 [15]).

Figure 7 shows power generated (a) and capacity factors (b) of various energy sources in Ontario (Canada) electrical grid in winter (Feb. 11, 2015), in spring (Apr. 16, 2015), and in summer (June 17, 2015). Analysis of the data in Fig. 7 shows that nuclear, hydro, gas, wind, biofuel, and solar are the major sources for electricity generation. However, in winter, solar might not be visible (see Figs. 7(a1) and 7(b1)). Somewhere in spring, solar became visible in a grid (see Figs. 7(a2) and 7(b2)). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the Ontario grid operation is provided below for a summer day (see Figs. 7(a3) and 7(b3)).

Fig. 7
Power generated (a) and capacity factors (b) of various energy sources in Ontario (Canada) in selected winter, spring, and summer working days of 2015 (based on data from [18]) (shown here just for reference purposes) [1,2]
Fig. 7
Power generated (a) and capacity factors (b) of various energy sources in Ontario (Canada) in selected winter, spring, and summer working days of 2015 (based on data from [18]) (shown here just for reference purposes) [1,2]

Electricity that day from midnight till 3 o'clock in the morning was mainly generated with nuclear, hydro, gas, wind, and biofuel. After 3 o'clock, biofuel power plants have increased slightly electricity generation followed by hydro and gas-fired power plants due to increased consumption of electricity in the province. Also, at the same time, wind power plants have also slightly increased electricity generation by the Mother Nature. However, after 7 o'clock wind power started to fluctuate and, eventually, decreased significantly. After 6 o'clock in the morning, solar power plants started to generate electricity.

During a day, hydro, gas-fired, and biofuel power plants had variable electricity generation to compensate changes in consumption of electrical energy and variations in generating electricity from wind and solar power plants. After 9 o'clock in the evening, energy consumption started to drop in the province, and at the same time, wind power increased. Therefore, gas-fired, hydro, and biofuel power plants decreased energy generation accordingly.

It should be noted that NPPs operated at about 100% of installed capacity providing reliable basic power to the grid. This example shows clearly that any grid that includes NPPs and/or renewable-energy sources must also include “fast-response” power plants such as gas-fired, coal-fired and/or large hydropower plants to compensate changes in consumption of electrical energy per day and variations in electricity supply by wind and/or solar power plants.

Usually, NPPs operate continuously on the maximum load, because of a high capital costs and low operating costs. The relative cost of electrical energy generated by any system is not only dependent on building capital costs and operating expenses, but also dependent on the capacity factor. The higher the capacity factor—the better, as generating costs fall proportionally. However, some renewable-energy sources with exception of large hydro-electric power plants can have significantly lower capacity factors compared to those of thermal- and nuclear-power plants (see Table 5).

Also, it should be noted here that countries having a large percentage of variable power sources such as wind and solar, run the risk of an electrical-grid collapse due to unpredicted power instabilities (see the abovementioned example for UK (Fig. 4)). Moreover, the following detrimental factors are usually not considered during estimation of variable power-sources costs: (1) costs of fast-response power plants with service crews on site 24/7 as a back-up power; and (2) faster amortization/wear of equipment of fast-response plants.

The major driving force for all advances in thermal power plants is directed towards increasing thermal efficiency (see Table 4) in order to reduce operating fuel costs and minimize specific emissions, and by that parameter thermal power plants have the highest thermal efficiencies in the power industry: up to 62% for combined-cycle power plants and up to 55% for supercritical-pressure coal-fired power plants.

Despite all advances in thermal power-plants design and operation worldwide, they are still considered as environmentally “unfriendly” due to significant carbon-dioxide emissions (for example, the largest in the world 5780-MWel Taichung coal-fired power plant (Taiwan) is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide with over 40 × 106 ton per year) [1,19]) and air pollution as a result of the combustion process. In addition, coal-fired power-plants produce significant amounts of slag and ash, and other greenhouse gases such as SO2, which contributes to acid rains. Comparison of various electricity-generating power plants based on carbon footprint is shown in Fig. 8, deaths per terawatt for various energy sources—in Fig. 9, and per cent of various wastes in total amount—in Table 6. Therefore, nuclear power looks quite attractive based on the abovementioned comparisons.

Fig. 8
Carbon footprint for various energy sources (courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; based on the data from Ref. [20]). If carbon capture and storage is used then the carbon footprint can be decreased for coal and gas by about six times. (For details on carbon footprint of NPPs—see Fig. 10).
Fig. 8
Carbon footprint for various energy sources (courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; based on the data from Ref. [20]). If carbon capture and storage is used then the carbon footprint can be decreased for coal and gas by about six times. (For details on carbon footprint of NPPs—see Fig. 10).
Fig. 9
Deaths per TW·h for various energy sources (based on data from Ref. [21])
Fig. 9
Deaths per TW·h for various energy sources (based on data from Ref. [21])
Fig. 10
Carbon footprint of NPP various phases (courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester; based on the data from British Energy for Torness AGR NPP)
Fig. 10
Carbon footprint of NPP various phases (courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester; based on the data from British Energy for Torness AGR NPP)
Table 6

Percent of various wastes in total amount

No.Wastes% of total amount
1Mining and quarrying27.30
2Agriculture20.13
3Demolition and construction18.51
4Industrial12.73
5Dredged spoils7.64
6Household6.94
7Commercial6.48
8Sewage sludge0.23
9Radioactive0.04
No.Wastes% of total amount
1Mining and quarrying27.30
2Agriculture20.13
3Demolition and construction18.51
4Industrial12.73
5Dredged spoils7.64
6Household6.94
7Commercial6.48
8Sewage sludge0.23
9Radioactive0.04

Note: Data courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester; partially based on the data from Ref. [22].

Modern Nuclear-Power Reactors and Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power is often considered to be a nonrenewable-energy source as the fossil fuels, such as coal and gas. However, nuclear resources can be used for significantly longer time than some fossil fuels, and in some cases almost indefinitely, if recycling of unused or spent uranium fuel, thoria-fuel resources, and fast-neutron-spectrum reactors are used. The major advantages of nuclear power [1] are:

  1. (1)

    concentrated and reliable source of almost infinite energy, which is independent of weather conditions (however, it should be noted that in summer of 2018, which was very hot on a record due to fast climate changes, some reactors/NPPs were forced to decrease power loads or even were shut down for some time, because of lower levels of water in rivers, etc., and/or of relatively high water temperatures including not only in-land water resources, but, also, sea/ocean waters);

  2. (2)

    high capacity factors are achievable, often in excess of 90% with long operating cycles, making units suitable for continuous base-load operation (Table 5);

  3. (3)

    essentially negligible operating emissions of carbon dioxide (see Fig. 8) and relatively small amount of wastes generated (see Table 6) compared to alternate fossil-fuel thermal power plants;

  4. (4)

    relatively small amount of fuel required compared to that of fossil-fuel thermal power plants (see Table 7); and

  5. (5)

    NPPs can supply relatively cheap electricity for recharging of electrical vehicles during night hours as they usually operate on full load (capacity) 24/7 (see Fig. 7).

Table 7

Approximate tonnage of wastes per 1000-MWel power per year for nuclear and coal-fired power plants

Nuclear power plantCoal-fired power plant
Fuel
 25 ton of UO22.6 × 106 ton of coal (5 × 1400 ton trains a day)
Wastes
 35 ton high level wastes6,500,000 ton of CO2
 310 ton intermediate level wastes900 ton of SO2
 460 ton low level wastes4500 ton of NOx
320,000 ton of ash
400 ton of toxic heavy metals
Nuclear power plantCoal-fired power plant
Fuel
 25 ton of UO22.6 × 106 ton of coal (5 × 1400 ton trains a day)
Wastes
 35 ton high level wastes6,500,000 ton of CO2
 310 ton intermediate level wastes900 ton of SO2
 460 ton low level wastes4500 ton of NOx
320,000 ton of ash
400 ton of toxic heavy metals

Note: Data courtesy of Dr. J. Roberts, University of Manchester.

As a result, nuclear power is considered as the most viable source for electricity generation within next 50–100 yr. However, nuclear power must operate and compete in energy markets based on relative costs and strategic advantages of the available fuels and energy types.

Current statistics of all world nuclear-power reactors connected to electrical grids are listed in Tables 812, and shown in Figs. 1215. Analysis of the current statistical data on nuclear-power reactors shows that, currently, 31 countries in the world have operating nuclear-power reactors (within these countries: 18 plan to build new reactors, and 13 do not plan to build new reactors) and 5 countries without nuclear-power reactors (Bangladesh, Belarus', Egypt, Turkey, and UAE) are working toward introducing nuclear energy on their soils (see Table 10).

Table 8

Number of nuclear-power reactors connected to electrical grid and forthcoming units as per December 2018a and before the Japan earthquake and tsunami disasterb

No. of unitsInstalled capacity, GWelForthcoming units
No.Reactor type (some details on reactors)As of December 2018Before March 2011As of December 2018Before March 2011No. of unitsGWel
1PWRs (largest group of nuclear reactors in the world—67%)301 268286 2487784
2BWRs or advanced BWRs (second largest group of reactors in the world—16%; ABWRs were the first Generation-III+ reactors put into operation in 1996–97)72 9272 8468
3PHWRs (third largest group of reactors in the world—11%; mainly CANDU-reactor type)48 5023 2585
4LGRs (3%) (Russia, 11 RBMKs and 4 EGPs; these pressure-channel boiling-water-cooled reactors will be shut down in the nearest future and will not be built again)1515101000
5AGRs (3%) (UK, 14 reactors); (all these CO2-cooled reactors will be shut down in the nearest future and will not be built again)14 188 91a0.2c
6Liquid-metal fast-breeder reactors (LMFBRs)(Russia, SFRs—BN-600 and BN-800 (see Fig. 11))2 11.3 0.630.6
In total452 44440237897101
No. of unitsInstalled capacity, GWelForthcoming units
No.Reactor type (some details on reactors)As of December 2018Before March 2011As of December 2018Before March 2011No. of unitsGWel
1PWRs (largest group of nuclear reactors in the world—67%)301 268286 2487784
2BWRs or advanced BWRs (second largest group of reactors in the world—16%; ABWRs were the first Generation-III+ reactors put into operation in 1996–97)72 9272 8468
3PHWRs (third largest group of reactors in the world—11%; mainly CANDU-reactor type)48 5023 2585
4LGRs (3%) (Russia, 11 RBMKs and 4 EGPs; these pressure-channel boiling-water-cooled reactors will be shut down in the nearest future and will not be built again)1515101000
5AGRs (3%) (UK, 14 reactors); (all these CO2-cooled reactors will be shut down in the nearest future and will not be built again)14 188 91a0.2c
6Liquid-metal fast-breeder reactors (LMFBRs)(Russia, SFRs—BN-600 and BN-800 (see Fig. 11))2 11.3 0.630.6
In total452 44440237897101
a

Data up to Dec. 31, 2017 are based on Nuclear News (March 2018) [23]; data on reactors put into operation in 2018 are from World Nuclear Association (WNA) [24] and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) [25].

b

Nuclear News, March 2011 [26] (technical parameters of various reactors are shown in [1,27,28] and by WNA and IAEA).

c

Forthcoming reactor is a helium-cooled reactor—high temperature reactor pebble-bed modular (HTR-PM) (China).

Note: Data in the table include 42 reactors in Japan, 33 of which are not in service as per December, 2018. Arrows mean decrease or increase in a number of reactors.

Table 9

Number of nuclear-power reactors connected to grid by nation (11 nations ranked by nuclear-reactor installed capacities) as per October 2018a and before the Japan earthquake and tsunami disasterb

No. of units (PWRs/BWRs)Installed capacity, GWel
No.NationAs of December 2018Before March 2011As of December 2018Before March 2011Changes in number of reactors from March 2011
1USA98 (65/33)104102103↓ Decreased by 6 reactors
2France58 (58/-)586363No changes
3China45 (43/-/2c)134210↑ Increased by 32 reactors
4Japand42 (19/23)544047↓ Decreased by 12 reactors
5Russia37 (20/-/15e/2f)322923↑ Increased by 5 reactors
6South Korea23 (20/-/3c)202318↑ Increased by 3 reactors
7Canada19 (-/-/19c)221415↓ Decreased by 3 reactors
8Ukraine15 (15/-)151313No changes
9Germany7 (6/1)171020↓ Decreased by 10 reactors
10Sweden8 (5/3)1099↓ Decreased by 2 reactors
11UK15 (1/-/14g)19910↓ Decreased by 4 reactors
In total367 (252/60/15e/2f/22c/14g)364353331↑ Increased by 3 reactors and installed capacity increased by 33 GWel
No. of units (PWRs/BWRs)Installed capacity, GWel
No.NationAs of December 2018Before March 2011As of December 2018Before March 2011Changes in number of reactors from March 2011
1USA98 (65/33)104102103↓ Decreased by 6 reactors
2France58 (58/-)586363No changes
3China45 (43/-/2c)134210↑ Increased by 32 reactors
4Japand42 (19/23)544047↓ Decreased by 12 reactors
5Russia37 (20/-/15e/2f)322923↑ Increased by 5 reactors
6South Korea23 (20/-/3c)202318↑ Increased by 3 reactors
7Canada19 (-/-/19c)221415↓ Decreased by 3 reactors
8Ukraine15 (15/-)151313No changes
9Germany7 (6/1)171020↓ Decreased by 10 reactors
10Sweden8 (5/3)1099↓ Decreased by 2 reactors
11UK15 (1/-/14g)19910↓ Decreased by 4 reactors
In total367 (252/60/15e/2f/22c/14g)364353331↑ Increased by 3 reactors and installed capacity increased by 33 GWel
a

Data up to Dec. 31, 2017 are based on Nuclear News (March 2018) [23]; data on reactors put into operation in 2018 are from WNA [24] and IAEA [25].

b

Nuclear News, March 2011 [26]. Data for all countries with nuclear-power reactors are listed in Table 10.

c

PHWRs.

d

As per December, 2018, only nine reactors are in operation (for details on Japan nuclear-power industry, see the JSME Greeting to NERS readers by Professor K. Okamoto at the beginning of the January 2019 NERS issue).

e

Number of LGRs.

f

LMFBRs.

g

AGRs.

Note: Arrows mean decrease or increase in a number of reactors.

Table 10

Number of nuclear-power reactors connected to electrical grid and forthcoming units as per December 2018a

# Units (type)Net MWel# UnitsNet MWelType
No.Nation(connected to grid)(forthcoming)
1Argentina3 (PHWRs)1632125PWR
2Armenia1 (PWR)37500
3Bangladesh22400PWR
4Belarus22218PWR
5Belgium7 (PWRs)591300
6Brazil2 (PWRs)188411245PWR
7Bulgaria2 (PWRs)192600
8Canada19 (PHWRs)13,55400
9China45 (43 PWRs; 2 PHWRs)42,0002122,57620 PWRs, 1 GCRb
10Czech Republic6 (PWRs)393000
11Egypt44760PWR
12Finland4 (2 PWRs; 2 BWRs)276422800PWR
13France58 (PWRs)63,13011600PWR
14Germany7 (6 PWRs; 1 BWR)951500
15Hungary4 (PWRs)188922400PWR
16India22 (18 PHWRs; 2 BWRs; 2 PWRs)6225851876 PHWRs; 1 PWR;1 LFMBR
17Iran1 (PWR)91522000PWR
18Japanc42 (19 PWRs; 18 BWRs; 5 ABWRs)39,75222650BWR
19Mexico2 (BWRs)155200
20Netherlands1 (PWR)48200
21Pakistan5 (4 PWRs; 1 PHWR)132033028PWR
22Romania2 (PHWRs)130021440PHWR
23Russia37 (20 PWRs; 15 LGRs; 2 LMFBRs)28,961748026 PWRs;1 LMRd
24Slovakia4 (PWRs)18142880PWR
25Slovenia1 (PWR)68800
26South Africa2 (PWRs)186000
27South Korea23 (20 PWRs; 3 PHWRs)21,83256760PWR
28Spain7 (6 PWRs; 1 BWR)712100
29Sweden8 (3 PWRs; 5 BWRs)862900
30Switzerland5 (3 PWRs; 2 BWRs)333300
31Taiwan4 (2 PWRs; 2 BWRs)384422600BWR
32Turkey44800PWR
33Ukraine15 (PWRs)13,10733020PWR
34UAE45380PWR
35UK15 (1 PWR; 14 AGRs)888323200PWR
36USA98 (65 PWRs; 33 BWRs)101,502671004 PWRs;2 BWRs
In total452400,85297100,931
Summary: 31 countries have operating nuclear-power reactors, and 5 countries plan to build nuclear-power reactors (in green color). In addition, 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear-power programs, and about 20 countries have expressed their interest in nuclear power. However, 13 countries with NPPs do not plan to build nuclear-power reactors (in black color). Moreover, such countries as Switzerland and some others might not proceed with new builds. In particular, President of France, Mr. E. Macron, said that France will shut down 14 nuclear reactors by 2035 and would cap the amount of electricity derives from NPPs to 50% from current 73%.
# Units (type)Net MWel# UnitsNet MWelType
No.Nation(connected to grid)(forthcoming)
1Argentina3 (PHWRs)1632125PWR
2Armenia1 (PWR)37500
3Bangladesh22400PWR
4Belarus22218PWR
5Belgium7 (PWRs)591300
6Brazil2 (PWRs)188411245PWR
7Bulgaria2 (PWRs)192600
8Canada19 (PHWRs)13,55400
9China45 (43 PWRs; 2 PHWRs)42,0002122,57620 PWRs, 1 GCRb
10Czech Republic6 (PWRs)393000
11Egypt44760PWR
12Finland4 (2 PWRs; 2 BWRs)276422800PWR
13France58 (PWRs)63,13011600PWR
14Germany7 (6 PWRs; 1 BWR)951500
15Hungary4 (PWRs)188922400PWR
16India22 (18 PHWRs; 2 BWRs; 2 PWRs)6225851876 PHWRs; 1 PWR;1 LFMBR
17Iran1 (PWR)91522000PWR
18Japanc42 (19 PWRs; 18 BWRs; 5 ABWRs)39,75222650BWR
19Mexico2 (BWRs)155200
20Netherlands1 (PWR)48200
21Pakistan5 (4 PWRs; 1 PHWR)132033028PWR
22Romania2 (PHWRs)130021440PHWR
23Russia37 (20 PWRs; 15 LGRs; 2 LMFBRs)28,961748026 PWRs;1 LMRd
24Slovakia4 (PWRs)18142880PWR
25Slovenia1 (PWR)68800
26South Africa2 (PWRs)186000
27South Korea23 (20 PWRs; 3 PHWRs)21,83256760PWR
28Spain7 (6 PWRs; 1 BWR)712100
29Sweden8 (3 PWRs; 5 BWRs)862900
30Switzerland5 (3 PWRs; 2 BWRs)333300
31Taiwan4 (2 PWRs; 2 BWRs)384422600BWR
32Turkey44800PWR
33Ukraine15 (PWRs)13,10733020PWR
34UAE45380PWR
35UK15 (1 PWR; 14 AGRs)888323200PWR
36USA98 (65 PWRs; 33 BWRs)101,502671004 PWRs;2 BWRs
In total452400,85297100,931
Summary: 31 countries have operating nuclear-power reactors, and 5 countries plan to build nuclear-power reactors (in green color). In addition, 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear-power programs, and about 20 countries have expressed their interest in nuclear power. However, 13 countries with NPPs do not plan to build nuclear-power reactors (in black color). Moreover, such countries as Switzerland and some others might not proceed with new builds. In particular, President of France, Mr. E. Macron, said that France will shut down 14 nuclear reactors by 2035 and would cap the amount of electricity derives from NPPs to 50% from current 73%.
a

Data up to Dec. 31, 2017 are based on Nuclear News (March 2018) [23] and data on reactors put into operation in 2018 are from WNA [24] and IAEA [25].

b

GCR is a helium-cooled reactor—HTR-PM (China).

c

For details on Japan nuclear-power industry, please see the JSME Greeting to NERS readers by Professor K. Okamoto at the beginning of the January 2019 NERS issue.

d

LMR is an SVBR-100 reactor (Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor (in Russian abbreviations)).

Table 11

Current activities worldwide on new nuclear-power-reactors build

No.Country/nuclear vendorCountries, which looking forward for new builds (number of planned units)
1China/various vendors (nuclear-power activities are supported by the Chinese government)China (21 + 1?b), Pakistan (3), Romania (2), UK (2)
In total: 28 + 1?
2Russia/Rosatom (outside Russia—ASE (AtomStroyExport) is the Russian Federation's nuclear-power equipment and service exporter. It is a fully owned subsidiary of Rosatom. Nuclear-power activities are financially supported by the Russian government.)Russia (4 + 3?), Belarus (2), Finland (1), Iran (2), Hungary (2), India (1), China (2), Turkey (4), Egypt (4?), Bangladesh (2), India (1)
In Total: 21 + 7?
3USA/Westinghouse, GEChina (2), USA (4 + 2?), Taiwan (2?)
In total: 6 + 4?
4South Korea/various vendorsUAE (4), South Korea (3)
In total: 7
5India/various vendorsIndia (6)
In total: 6
6France/ArevaChina (1), Finland (1), France (1), UK (2)
In total: 5
7Japan/Hitachi, ToshibaJapan (1 + 1?), USA (2)
In total: 3 + 1?
8Slovakia/SkodaSlovakia (2)
In total: 2
9Canada/AECL (Candu Energy, Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada)Romania (2)
In total: 2
10Germany/KWU (KraftWerk Union AG)Brazil (1?)
In total: 1?
11Argentina/CNEA (Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica)Argentina (1?)
In total: 1?
No.Country/nuclear vendorCountries, which looking forward for new builds (number of planned units)
1China/various vendors (nuclear-power activities are supported by the Chinese government)China (21 + 1?b), Pakistan (3), Romania (2), UK (2)
In total: 28 + 1?
2Russia/Rosatom (outside Russia—ASE (AtomStroyExport) is the Russian Federation's nuclear-power equipment and service exporter. It is a fully owned subsidiary of Rosatom. Nuclear-power activities are financially supported by the Russian government.)Russia (4 + 3?), Belarus (2), Finland (1), Iran (2), Hungary (2), India (1), China (2), Turkey (4), Egypt (4?), Bangladesh (2), India (1)
In Total: 21 + 7?
3USA/Westinghouse, GEChina (2), USA (4 + 2?), Taiwan (2?)
In total: 6 + 4?
4South Korea/various vendorsUAE (4), South Korea (3)
In total: 7
5India/various vendorsIndia (6)
In total: 6
6France/ArevaChina (1), Finland (1), France (1), UK (2)
In total: 5
7Japan/Hitachi, ToshibaJapan (1 + 1?), USA (2)
In total: 3 + 1?
8Slovakia/SkodaSlovakia (2)
In total: 2
9Canada/AECL (Candu Energy, Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada)Romania (2)
In total: 2
10Germany/KWU (KraftWerk Union AG)Brazil (1?)
In total: 1?
11Argentina/CNEA (Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica)Argentina (1?)
In total: 1?
a

Based on Nuclear News, March 2018 [23].

b

?—Means “Commercial start date—indefinitely” (Nuclear News, 2018 [23]).

Table 12

Largest in the world operating nuclear-power reactors [23]

NameNo. unitsNet MWelReactor typeCom. startReactor supplierCountry
Oskarshamn11400BWR1985ABB-AtomSweden, Oskarshamn, Kalmar
Philippsburg11402PWR1985KWUGermany, Philippsburg, Baden-Württemberg
Isar11410PWR1988KWUGermany, Essenbach, Bavaria
Brokdorf11410PWR1986KWUGermany, Brokdorf, Schleswig-Holstein
Shin-Kori11416PWR2016DoosanSouth Korea, Gijang
Civaux21495PWR2002FramatomFrance, Civaux, Vienne
Chooz21500PWR2000FramatomFrance, Chooz, Ardennes
Taishan11660PWR2018ArevaChina, Guangdong
NameNo. unitsNet MWelReactor typeCom. startReactor supplierCountry
Oskarshamn11400BWR1985ABB-AtomSweden, Oskarshamn, Kalmar
Philippsburg11402PWR1985KWUGermany, Philippsburg, Baden-Württemberg
Isar11410PWR1988KWUGermany, Essenbach, Bavaria
Brokdorf11410PWR1986KWUGermany, Brokdorf, Schleswig-Holstein
Shin-Kori11416PWR2016DoosanSouth Korea, Gijang
Civaux21495PWR2002FramatomFrance, Civaux, Vienne
Chooz21500PWR2000FramatomFrance, Chooz, Ardennes
Taishan11660PWR2018ArevaChina, Guangdong

The largest group of nuclear-power reactors by type is pressurized water reactors (PWRs) (301 from 452 reactors or 67% of the total number), and quite significant number of PWRs are planned to be built (about 77) (for details, see Table 8). The second largest group of reactors is boiling water reactors (BWRs)/advanced BWRs (ABWRs) (72 reactors or 16% of the total number). The third group is PHWRs (48 reactors or 11% of the total number). Considering the number of forthcoming reactors, the number of BWRs/ABWRs and PHWRs will possibly decrease within next 20–25 yr. Furthermore, within next 10–15 yr or so, all advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) (carbon-dioxide-cooled) and light-water-cooled graphite-moderated reactors (LGRs) will be shut down forever. However, instead of carbon-dioxide-cooled AGRs helium-cooled reactors will be built and put into operation.

Analysis of the data in Tables 9 and 10 shows that real nuclear “renaissance” is in China (32 reactors built and put into operation within past 8 yr!), in Russia (addition of 5 reactors), and in South Korea (addition of 3 reactors). Meanwhile, the most significant drop in a number of reactors is in Japan (12 reactors were shut down) (only about 9 reactors out of 42 are currently in operation), in Germany (10 reactors), in U.S. (6 reactors), in UK (4 reactors), and in Canada (3 reactors). In addition, Germany and Canada have no plans to build new reactors (for details on other countries, see Tables 9 and 10).

Table 11 lists current activities in various countries worldwide on new nuclear-power-reactors build. Analysis of the data in Table 11 clearly shows that China and Russia are the front runners in new nuclear builds in their countries and abroad. And it is not a big surprise, because both governments provide a significant and long-term support with various funds for nuclear-power R&D and their nuclear vendors, especially, to build NPPs abroad plus credits and other incentives for foreign countries, which would like to introduce nuclear power on their soils.

Last several years and, especially, year of 2018, were very important for the nuclear-power industry of the world. As such, Russia put into operation a number of Generation III+ VVERs (PWRs) (for technical parameters, see Tables 13 and 14) and the SFR-BN-800 reactor in 2016 (for technical parameters, see Table 15 and Fig. 11) and continue to lead the SFR technologies in the world.

Fig. 11
Reactor hall of BN-800 reactor (Courtesy of Rosatom, Photo by A. Savransky) [30]
Fig. 11
Reactor hall of BN-800 reactor (Courtesy of Rosatom, Photo by A. Savransky) [30]
Table 13

Reference parameters of Generation III+ VVER

ParameterValue
Thermal power3200 MWth
Electric power1160 MWel
NPP thermal efficiency36%
Primary coolant pressure16.2 MPa
Coolant temperature at reactor inlet298 °C
Coolant temperature at reactor outlet329 °C
Steam-generator pressure/temperature6.27 MPa / 278 °C
Main equipment service life60 yr
Replaced equipment service lifeNot less than 30 yr
Capacity factorUp to 90%
Length of fuel cycle4–5 yr
Frequency of refueling12–18 months
Fuel assembly maximum burn-upUp to 60-70 MW day/kgU
Annual average length of scheduled shut-downs (for refueling, scheduled maintenance work)16–40 days per year
Refueling length≤16 days per year
Number of not scheduled reactor shutdowns≤1 per year
Frequency of severe core damage<10−6 per year
Frequency of limiting emergency release<10−7 per year
Efficient time of passive safety and emergency control system operation without operator's action and power supply≥24 h
Operating basis earthquake/SSE, magnitude of MSK-64 scale6 and 7
RP main stationary equipment is designed for SSE of magnitude8
ParameterValue
Thermal power3200 MWth
Electric power1160 MWel
NPP thermal efficiency36%
Primary coolant pressure16.2 MPa
Coolant temperature at reactor inlet298 °C
Coolant temperature at reactor outlet329 °C
Steam-generator pressure/temperature6.27 MPa / 278 °C
Main equipment service life60 yr
Replaced equipment service lifeNot less than 30 yr
Capacity factorUp to 90%
Length of fuel cycle4–5 yr
Frequency of refueling12–18 months
Fuel assembly maximum burn-upUp to 60-70 MW day/kgU
Annual average length of scheduled shut-downs (for refueling, scheduled maintenance work)16–40 days per year
Refueling length≤16 days per year
Number of not scheduled reactor shutdowns≤1 per year
Frequency of severe core damage<10−6 per year
Frequency of limiting emergency release<10−7 per year
Efficient time of passive safety and emergency control system operation without operator's action and power supply≥24 h
Operating basis earthquake/SSE, magnitude of MSK-64 scale6 and 7
RP main stationary equipment is designed for SSE of magnitude8

Note: Mainly based on data from paper by Ryzhov et al. (2010) [29] [1].

Table 14

Additional typical parameters of latest VVER-1000 series 300 and 400 [1]

ParameterValue
Pressure vessel ID4.14 m
RPV wall thickness0.19 m
RPV height without cover10.9 m
Core equivalent diameter3.12 m
Core height3.56 m
Volumetric heat flux110 MW/m3
Average volumetric flow rate in assembly515±55 m3/h
No. of fuel assemblies163
No. of rods per assembly317
Fuel mass80 ton of UO2
Fuel enrichment4%
Part of fuel reloaded during year1/3
ParameterValue
Pressure vessel ID4.14 m
RPV wall thickness0.19 m
RPV height without cover10.9 m
Core equivalent diameter3.12 m
Core height3.56 m
Volumetric heat flux110 MW/m3
Average volumetric flow rate in assembly515±55 m3/h
No. of fuel assemblies163
No. of rods per assembly317
Fuel mass80 ton of UO2
Fuel enrichment4%
Part of fuel reloaded during year1/3
Table 15

Key-design parameters of Russian SFRs—BN reactors [1]

No.ParametersBN-600aBN-800b (see Fig. 11)BN-1200c
1Thermal power (MWth)147021002800
2Electrical power (MWel)6008801220
3Basic components:
No. of turbines × type3 × K-200-1301 × K-800-1301 × K-1200-160
No. of generators × type3 × ТГВ-200-M1 × ТЗВ-800-21 × ТЗВ-1200-2
4Pressure vessel
Diameter (m)12.8612.9616.9
Height (m)12.6014.8220.72
5Number of heat-transfer loops334
6T of reactor coolant: sodium, primary loop—Tin/Tout (°C)377/550354/547410/550
7T of intermediate coolant: sodium, secondary loop—Tin/Tout (°C)328/518309/505355/527
8T of power-cycle working fluid: water/steam—Tin/Tout (°C)240/505210/490275/510
9P at SG outlet (MPa)13.714.017.0
10Scheme of steam reheat withSodiumSteamSteam
11Basic unchangeable components service term (yr)304060
12NPP thermal efficiency (gross) (%)42.541.943.6
13NPP thermal efficiency (net) (%)40.038.840.5
No.ParametersBN-600aBN-800b (see Fig. 11)BN-1200c
1Thermal power (MWth)147021002800
2Electrical power (MWel)6008801220
3Basic components:
No. of turbines × type3 × K-200-1301 × K-800-1301 × K-1200-160
No. of generators × type3 × ТГВ-200-M1 × ТЗВ-800-21 × ТЗВ-1200-2
4Pressure vessel
Diameter (m)12.8612.9616.9
Height (m)12.6014.8220.72
5Number of heat-transfer loops334
6T of reactor coolant: sodium, primary loop—Tin/Tout (°C)377/550354/547410/550
7T of intermediate coolant: sodium, secondary loop—Tin/Tout (°C)328/518309/505355/527
8T of power-cycle working fluid: water/steam—Tin/Tout (°C)240/505210/490275/510
9P at SG outlet (MPa)13.714.017.0
10Scheme of steam reheat withSodiumSteamSteam
11Basic unchangeable components service term (yr)304060
12NPP thermal efficiency (gross) (%)42.541.943.6
13NPP thermal efficiency (net) (%)40.038.840.5
a

BN-600 is currently in operation at the Beloyarsk NPP (BNPP); BN-600 commercial start—1981.

b

BN-800—commercial start in 2016 (BNPP).

c

BN-1200—concept/design of future Russian SFR with objective to move to a close fuel cycle in nuclear-power industry.

China put into operation many reactors/NPPs including the largest in the world Generation III+ PWR—EPR (Areva design) with amazing installed capacity of 1660 MWel (see Table 12 for a list of largest operating nuclear-power reactors in the world with installed capacities from 1400 MWel and above, and Table 16 for basic parameters of EPR). In addition, several AP-1000 reactors (Westinghouse design), also, a Generation III+ design, were put into operation in China first time in the world (for major differences between Generation III and Generation III+ reactors, see a comparison of basic parameters of ABWR and BWR by Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy (Table 17)). In general, Generation III+ reactors/NPPs have installed capacities from 1000+ to 1660 MWel, enhanced safety, and can reach slightly higher thermal efficiencies up to 36–37% (38%) compared to those of generation III reactors/NPPs. In addition, Table 18 lists basic data on APR-1400 (Doosan design)—Generation III+ PWR from South Korea, which operates there, and seven more will be put into operation soon: three in South Korea and four in UAE (Table 10).

Table 16

Basic data on AREVA's Generation III+ PWR–EPRa [31]

CharacteristicsData
Reactor core
 Thermal power4590 MWth
 Electric power1600+ MWel
 Gross thermal efficiency36–37%
 Active fuel length4.2 m
 No. of fuel assemblies241
 No. of fuel rods63,865
 Fuel assembly array17 × 17
 No. of rod cluster control assemblies89
 Average linear power166.7 W/cm
 Operation cycle length up to24 months
Reactor coolant system
 No. of loops4
 Nominal flow28,315 m3/h
 Reactor-pressure-vessel inlet temperature295.2 °C
 Reactor-pressure-vessel outlet temperature (Tsat =344.8 °C at 15.5 MPa)330 °C
 Primary side operating pressure15.5 MPa
 Secondary side saturation pressure at nominal conditions (SG outlet) (Tsat = 292.5 °C)7.72 MPa
 Service life60 yr
CharacteristicsData
Reactor core
 Thermal power4590 MWth
 Electric power1600+ MWel
 Gross thermal efficiency36–37%
 Active fuel length4.2 m
 No. of fuel assemblies241
 No. of fuel rods63,865
 Fuel assembly array17 × 17
 No. of rod cluster control assemblies89
 Average linear power166.7 W/cm
 Operation cycle length up to24 months
Reactor coolant system
 No. of loops4
 Nominal flow28,315 m3/h
 Reactor-pressure-vessel inlet temperature295.2 °C
 Reactor-pressure-vessel outlet temperature (Tsat =344.8 °C at 15.5 MPa)330 °C
 Primary side operating pressure15.5 MPa
 Secondary side saturation pressure at nominal conditions (SG outlet) (Tsat = 292.5 °C)7.72 MPa
 Service life60 yr
a

In China, Taishan NPP two EPRs are 1660 MWel (one in service from 2018); planned EPRs with 1600 MWel—one in Finland and one in France, and two in UK.

Table 17

Key specifications of ABWR (Generation III+) and BWR (Generation III) NPPs

ParametersItemABWRBWR-5
OutputPlant output1350 MWel1100 MWel
Reactor thermal output3926 MWth3293 MWth
Thermal efficiency (gross)%3433.4
Reactor coreFuel assemblies872764
Control rods205 rods185 rods
Reactor equipmentRecirculation systemInternal pump methodExternal recirculation type
Control rod driveHydraulic/electric motor drive methodsHydraulic drive
Reactor containment vesselReinforced concrete with built-in linerFree-standing vessel
Residual heat removal systemThree systemsTwo systems
Turbine systemsThermal cycleTwo-stage reheatNonreheat
Turbine (blade length)1.32 m (52 in.)1.09 m (43 in.)
Moisture separation methodReheat typeNonreheat type
Heater drainDrain up typeCascade type
ParametersItemABWRBWR-5
OutputPlant output1350 MWel1100 MWel
Reactor thermal output3926 MWth3293 MWth
Thermal efficiency (gross)%3433.4
Reactor coreFuel assemblies872764
Control rods205 rods185 rods
Reactor equipmentRecirculation systemInternal pump methodExternal recirculation type
Control rod driveHydraulic/electric motor drive methodsHydraulic drive
Reactor containment vesselReinforced concrete with built-in linerFree-standing vessel
Residual heat removal systemThree systemsTwo systems
Turbine systemsThermal cycleTwo-stage reheatNonreheat
Turbine (blade length)1.32 m (52 in.)1.09 m (43 in.)
Moisture separation methodReheat typeNonreheat type
Heater drainDrain up typeCascade type

Note: Courtesy of Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy [1].

Table 18

Basic data on APR-1400a Generation III+ PWR [28]

CharacteristicsData
Reactor core
 Thermal power3983 MWth
 Electric power1400 MWel
 Gross thermal efficiency34–35%
 Active fuel length3.81 m
 No. of fuel assemblies241
 Fuel assembly array16 × 16
 No. of fuels rods in fuel assembly236
 No. of fuel rods56,876
 FuelUO2
 Core equivalent diameter3.65 m
 Operation cycle length more than18 months
 Fuel rod outer diameter/sheath-wall thickness9.5 mm/0.57 mm
 Burnable absorber materialGd2O3–UO2
Reactor coolant system
 No. of pumps4
 Nominal flow21,618 m3/h
 Reactor inlet temperature291 °C
 Reactor outlet temperature (Tsat = 344.8 °C at 15.5 MPa)324 °C
 Operating pressure15.5 MPa
Power cycle
 Number of steam generators4
 Steam pressure at full power6.89 MPa
 Stem saturated temperature at full power285 °C
CharacteristicsData
Reactor core
 Thermal power3983 MWth
 Electric power1400 MWel
 Gross thermal efficiency34–35%
 Active fuel length3.81 m
 No. of fuel assemblies241
 Fuel assembly array16 × 16
 No. of fuels rods in fuel assembly236
 No. of fuel rods56,876
 FuelUO2
 Core equivalent diameter3.65 m
 Operation cycle length more than18 months
 Fuel rod outer diameter/sheath-wall thickness9.5 mm/0.57 mm
 Burnable absorber materialGd2O3–UO2
Reactor coolant system
 No. of pumps4
 Nominal flow21,618 m3/h
 Reactor inlet temperature291 °C
 Reactor outlet temperature (Tsat = 344.8 °C at 15.5 MPa)324 °C
 Operating pressure15.5 MPa
Power cycle
 Number of steam generators4
 Steam pressure at full power6.89 MPa
 Stem saturated temperature at full power285 °C
a

Put into operation in South Korea; more reactors planned to be put into operation in South Korea and UAE (Table 10).

Year of 2019 and following years will be also very important ones, because a unique GCR—a helium-cooled reactor—HTR-PM should be put into operation China. Also, a number of Generation III+ reactors around the world are expected to be put into operation as well, plus, at least one, or a number of SFR(s) can be added to the fleet of nuclear-power reactors (see Table 10 or the latest March issue of Nuclear News [23]). In addition, a number of nonnuclear-energy countries will have operating nuclear-power reactors (Table 10).

Figure 12 shows impact of the major NPPs accidents within the last 50 yr on new builds. Analysis of the data in this figure shows that we might face a very significant drop (up to three times) in a number of operating nuclear-power reactors somewhere between 2030 and 2040 (see Fig. 16); if we assume that current operating term of reactors is on average 45 yr, and the rate of building and putting into operation new reactors is ∼21 reactors per 5 yr. Even with higher rates of new nuclear-capacities additions, we will have a tangible decrease in a number of operating reactors. If this forecast(s) is correct, the nuclear-power industry will face very difficult times ahead. Conservative projections for selected countries in terms of a number of reactors, which might be shut down within future years, are shown in Figs. 17 and 18.

Fig. 12
(a) Number of nuclear-power reactors of the world put into commercial operation versus years as per November 2018 (based on data from Nuclear News [23,32]) [1]; Four reactors (India 2 × 150 MWel; Switzerland 1 × 365 MWel; and USA 1 × 613 MWel and 1 × 650 MWel) have been put into operation in 1969, i.e., they operate for almost 50 yr. It is clear from this diagram that the Chernobyl NPP accident has tremendous negative impact on nuclear-power industry, which is lasting for decades, and, currently, we have additional negative impact of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. (b) Number of nuclear-power reactors in the world by installed capacity as per November 2018 [23,33]. For better understanding of this diagram, the largest number of reactors has installed capacities within the range of 900–999 MWel.
Fig. 12
(a) Number of nuclear-power reactors of the world put into commercial operation versus years as per November 2018 (based on data from Nuclear News [23,32]) [1]; Four reactors (India 2 × 150 MWel; Switzerland 1 × 365 MWel; and USA 1 × 613 MWel and 1 × 650 MWel) have been put into operation in 1969, i.e., they operate for almost 50 yr. It is clear from this diagram that the Chernobyl NPP accident has tremendous negative impact on nuclear-power industry, which is lasting for decades, and, currently, we have additional negative impact of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. (b) Number of nuclear-power reactors in the world by installed capacity as per November 2018 [23,33]. For better understanding of this diagram, the largest number of reactors has installed capacities within the range of 900–999 MWel.
Fig. 13
Number of reactors built in the world [34] (based on the data from Ref. [23]): (a) and their installed capacities and (b) from 1969 till 2018 (solid lines and dark green columns) and planned reactors and installed capacities until 2035 (dashed lines and green columns) (for details, see Fig. 14)
Fig. 13
Number of reactors built in the world [34] (based on the data from Ref. [23]): (a) and their installed capacities and (b) from 1969 till 2018 (solid lines and dark green columns) and planned reactors and installed capacities until 2035 (dashed lines and green columns) (for details, see Fig. 14)
Fig. 14
Number of reactors planned to be built [34] (based on data from Ref. [23]): (a) and their planned installed capacities and (b) from 2018 till 2027
Fig. 14
Number of reactors planned to be built [34] (based on data from Ref. [23]): (a) and their planned installed capacities and (b) from 2018 till 2027
Fig. 15
Age of nuclear-power reactors in selected countries (11 nations with the largest installed capacities of reactors) as per March 2017 (based on the data from Ref. [33]) (shown here data on 363 reactors with the total installed capacity of 342 GWel Net) (also, for other details, see Table 10). Some symbols might represent more than one reactor, because in some cases, a number of reactors with the same installed capacity (power) have been put into commercial operation within the same year.
Fig. 15
Age of nuclear-power reactors in selected countries (11 nations with the largest installed capacities of reactors) as per March 2017 (based on the data from Ref. [33]) (shown here data on 363 reactors with the total installed capacity of 342 GWel Net) (also, for other details, see Table 10). Some symbols might represent more than one reactor, because in some cases, a number of reactors with the same installed capacity (power) have been put into commercial operation within the same year.
Fig. 16
Possible scenarios for future of nuclear power; based on 45 yr in service of current reactors and adding new reactors with rate of ∼21 reactor per 5 yr (red line) [1]
Fig. 16
Possible scenarios for future of nuclear power; based on 45 yr in service of current reactors and adding new reactors with rate of ∼21 reactor per 5 yr (red line) [1]
Fig. 17
Possible conservative scenarios for future of nuclear power in USA, if no additional reactors are built [34]; based on 45 yr (a) and 60 yr (b) in service of current reactors (based on the data from Ref. [23])
Fig. 17
Possible conservative scenarios for future of nuclear power in USA, if no additional reactors are built [34]; based on 45 yr (a) and 60 yr (b) in service of current reactors (based on the data from Ref. [23])
Fig. 18
Possible conservative scenarios for future of nuclear power in France (a), Japan (b), China (c), Russia (d), South Korea (e), and UK (f), if no additional reactors are built; based on 45 yr in service of current reactors [34] (based on the data from Ref. [23])
Fig. 18
Possible conservative scenarios for future of nuclear power in France (a), Japan (b), China (c), Russia (d), South Korea (e), and UK (f), if no additional reactors are built; based on 45 yr in service of current reactors [34] (based on the data from Ref. [23])

It should be once more emphasized that, in general, current problems in the world nuclear-power industry are: significant delays in putting into operation new, mainly, Generation III+ reactors, indecision of governments in terms of support of nuclear-based electricity generation; and radioactive-waste management and safe storage.

Currently, operating NPPs with water-cooled nuclear reactors, which are the largest group of all reactors' types (∼96% of 452 nuclear-power reactors), have lower thermal efficiencies (32–36% (38%)) compared to those NPPs with liquid metal-cooled (SFRs) (up to 40%) and gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) (up to 42%), and way below of those of modern advanced thermal power plants (see Table 4). Therefore, to be competitive on energy markets, it is necessary to make this type of NPPs more efficient.

The major problem with low thermal efficiency of NPPs with water-cooled reactors is that at the turbine inlet we have only saturated steam of low parameters (maximum steam parameters as of today are: Psat ≈ 7 MPa and Tsat = 285.8 °C). Areva has planned to have the pressure of 7.8 MPa (Tsat = 293.7 °C) at the turbine inlet of the largest in the world by the installed capacity EPR (1660 MWel), which can push the gross thermal efficiency of a NPP up to 37–38%.

Therefore, we need to have bright future for these the most “popular” NPPs. The conventional way, which the thermal-power industry has passed at the end of 50 s, was increasing a pressure at the steam-turbine inlet from a subcritical to supercritical one and having steam superheat up to 625 °C. This approach allowed to move from about 43% gross thermal efficiency to about 55% for supercritical-pressure coal-fired power plants (see Table 4). Due to this one of the six concepts of the Generation IV nuclear-power reactors is a supercritical water-cooled reactor [1,28,35,36]. Also, there is an interim approach, which is only applicable to pressure-channel reactors—to introduce a nuclear steam superheat inside a reactor, which was tested in 1960s and 1970s in USA, Russia, and some other countries [37].

Small Modular Reactors

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are today's a very “hot” topic in nuclear engineering worldwide [1,38]. According to the IAEA ARIS (Advanced Reactors Information System) data, there are about 55 SMRs designs/concepts, which can be classified as: (1) water-cooled SMRs (land based)—19; (2) water-cooled SMRs (marine based)—6; (3) high-temperature gas-cooled SMRs—10; (4) molten-salt SMRs—9; (5) fast-neutron-spectrum SMRs—10; and (6) other SMRs—1. From all these 55 SMRs only two KLT-40S reactors have been constructed, installed on a barge, and should be put into operation in 2019; CAREM (Central Argentina de Elementos Modulares) SMR (PWR-type; 25 (32) MWel; CNEA (Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica), Argentina) is under construction now, and FUJI (200 MWel, MSR International Thorium Molten-Salt Forum (ITMSF), Japan) is possibly within an experimental phase.

In general, as of today, a number of small nuclear-power reactors by installed capacity (10–300 MWel) operate around the world (see Table 19). Moreover, some of them operate successfully for about 50 yr! However, they cannot be named as SMRs. Also, France, Russia, UK, USA, and other countries have great experience in successful development, manufacturing, and operation of submarines, icebreakers, and ships propulsion reactors. Therefore, many modern designs/concepts of SMRs are based on these achievements. (Also, it should be mentioned that a number of SMRs concepts are based on the Generation IV nuclear-power-reactors concepts [1].)

Table 19

Smallest in the world operating nuclear-power reactors (10–300 MWel)

Reactor
NPPNo. of unitsNet MWelTypeModelCommercial startLocationReactor supplier
<50 MWel
 Bilibino411LGREGP-61974; 1975; 1976; 1977Russia, ChukotkaMTM
50 − 99 MWel
 Rajasthan190PHWRCANDU1973India, Kota, RajasthanAECL/DAE
 Kanupp190PHWRCANDU1972Pakistan, Karachi, SindGE Canada
100–199 MWel
 Tarapur2150BWRBWR-1/Mark II1969; 1969India, MaharashtraGE
 Rajasthan1187PHWRFour-loop1981India, Kota, RajasthanAECL/DAE
200–300 MWel
 Rajasthan4202PHWRFour-loop2000; 2000; 2010; 2010India, Kota, RajasthanNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Kaiga4202PHWRFour-loop2000; 2000; 2007; 2011India, KarnatakaNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Kakrapar2202PHWRFour-loop1993; 1995India, GujaratNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Narora2202PHWRFour-loop1991; 1992India, Uttar PradeshNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Madras2205PHWREight-loop1984; 1986India, Kalpakkam, Tamil NaduNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Qinshan1298PWRCNP-3001994China, Haiyan, ZhejiangMHI
 Chasnupp2300PWRCNP-3002000; 2011Pakistan, Mianwali, PunjabCNNC
Reactor
NPPNo. of unitsNet MWelTypeModelCommercial startLocationReactor supplier
<50 MWel
 Bilibino411LGREGP-61974; 1975; 1976; 1977Russia, ChukotkaMTM
50 − 99 MWel
 Rajasthan190PHWRCANDU1973India, Kota, RajasthanAECL/DAE
 Kanupp190PHWRCANDU1972Pakistan, Karachi, SindGE Canada
100–199 MWel
 Tarapur2150BWRBWR-1/Mark II1969; 1969India, MaharashtraGE
 Rajasthan1187PHWRFour-loop1981India, Kota, RajasthanAECL/DAE
200–300 MWel
 Rajasthan4202PHWRFour-loop2000; 2000; 2010; 2010India, Kota, RajasthanNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Kaiga4202PHWRFour-loop2000; 2000; 2007; 2011India, KarnatakaNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Kakrapar2202PHWRFour-loop1993; 1995India, GujaratNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Narora2202PHWRFour-loop1991; 1992India, Uttar PradeshNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Madras2205PHWREight-loop1984; 1986India, Kalpakkam, Tamil NaduNuclear Power Corp. of India, Ltd.
 Qinshan1298PWRCNP-3001994China, Haiyan, ZhejiangMHI
 Chasnupp2300PWRCNP-3002000; 2011Pakistan, Mianwali, PunjabCNNC

Note: Based on data from Nuclear News, 2018 [23].

As such, Russia has adjusted their proven marine reactor—KLT-40S for operation as an SMR for electricity generation and heat supply (also, a desalination of water is possible). Figure 19 shows a schematic of KLT-40S reactor and its systems; Fig. 20—photo of reactor KLT-40S with four steam generators and reactor-coolant circulation pumps; Fig. 21—KLT-40S reactor-core cross section; Fig. 22—photo of the floating nuclear thermal-power plant (FNThPP) with two KLT-40S reactors; and Table 20—main parameters of KLT-40S.

Fig. 19
Schematic of KLT-40S reactor and its systems (based on original figures from AO OKBM by the name of I. I. Afrikantov, Brochure on KLT-40S [39] and from Ref. [37] (in red—newly introduced safety systems): 1—passive system of containment emergency pressure decrease (condensing system); 2—active emergency cooling system through heat exchangers of loops I—III; 3—passive emergency core cooling system (hydraulic accumulators); 4—active emergency core cooling system from feedwater pumps; 5—active system for injecting liquid absorber; 6—active emergency core cooling system from feedwater pumps; 7—active emergency core cooling system through recirculation pumps; 8—system of reactor caisson filling with water; 9—containment passive emergency pressure decrease system (bubbling); 10—active emergency shutdown cooling system (through process condensers); 11—passive emergency shutdown cooling system; 12—to atmosphere.
Fig. 19
Schematic of KLT-40S reactor and its systems (based on original figures from AO OKBM by the name of I. I. Afrikantov, Brochure on KLT-40S [39] and from Ref. [37] (in red—newly introduced safety systems): 1—passive system of containment emergency pressure decrease (condensing system); 2—active emergency cooling system through heat exchangers of loops I—III; 3—passive emergency core cooling system (hydraulic accumulators); 4—active emergency core cooling system from feedwater pumps; 5—active system for injecting liquid absorber; 6—active emergency core cooling system from feedwater pumps; 7—active emergency core cooling system through recirculation pumps; 8—system of reactor caisson filling with water; 9—containment passive emergency pressure decrease system (bubbling); 10—active emergency shutdown cooling system (through process condensers); 11—passive emergency shutdown cooling system; 12—to atmosphere.
Fig. 20
Reactor KLT-40S (КЛТ-40С in Russian abbreviations) (in center) with four steam generators (larger cylinders) and four reactor-coolant circulation pumps (smaller cylinders) (Photo courtesy of Rosatom) [30]
Fig. 20
Reactor KLT-40S (КЛТ-40С in Russian abbreviations) (in center) with four steam generators (larger cylinders) and four reactor-coolant circulation pumps (smaller cylinders) (Photo courtesy of Rosatom) [30]
Fig. 21
KLT-40S reactor-core cross section (prepared by UOIT student A. Khan; based on original figure from AO OKBM by the name of I. I. Afrikantov [39]): 1—cell number; 2—main assembly in central zone; 3—main assemblies; 4—assembly with emergency shut-down rod; 5—assembly for neutron-absorber location; 6—assembly peripheral zone for location of extra sensors for neutron-flux control.
Fig. 21
KLT-40S reactor-core cross section (prepared by UOIT student A. Khan; based on original figure from AO OKBM by the name of I. I. Afrikantov [39]): 1—cell number; 2—main assembly in central zone; 3—main assemblies; 4—assembly with emergency shut-down rod; 5—assembly for neutron-absorber location; 6—assembly peripheral zone for location of extra sensors for neutron-flux control.
Fig. 22
Photo of FNThPP (Плавающая Атомная Тепловая ЭлектроСтанция (ПАТЭС) (in Russian abbreviations)) on barge with two KLT-40S reactors (Photo courtesy of Rosatom) [30]. Barge: length—140 m; width—30 m; height of board—10 m; draught—5.6 m; displacement—approximately 21,000 ton; underwater foundation pit in m—175 (L) × 45 (W) × 9 (D); operating term of FNThPP—40 yr; number of servicing personal—approximately 70; and construction term—4 yr.
Fig. 22
Photo of FNThPP (Плавающая Атомная Тепловая ЭлектроСтанция (ПАТЭС) (in Russian abbreviations)) on barge with two KLT-40S reactors (Photo courtesy of Rosatom) [30]. Barge: length—140 m; width—30 m; height of board—10 m; draught—5.6 m; displacement—approximately 21,000 ton; underwater foundation pit in m—175 (L) × 45 (W) × 9 (D); operating term of FNThPP—40 yr; number of servicing personal—approximately 70; and construction term—4 yr.
Table 20

Main parameters of KLT-40S SMR [37,39]

ParametersKLT–40S
Reactor typePWR
Reactor coolant/moderatorLight water
Thermal power (MWth)150
Electric power, gross/net (MWel)38.5/35
Thermal efficiency (%)∼26
Expected capacity factor (%)60–70
Maximum output thermal power (Gcal/h)73
Production of desalinated watera (m3/day)40,000–100,000
Operating range of power (%)10–100
Normal-mode power variation (%/s)0.1
Primary circuit pressure (MPa)12.7
Primary circuit Tin/Tout (°C)280/316
Reactor coolant massflow rate (ton/h)680
Primary circuit circulation modeForced
Power cycleIndirect Rankine cycle
Psteam at SG outlet (MPa)3.72
Tsat at Psteam (°C)246.1
Overheated Tsteam at SG outlet (°C)290
Steam massflow rate (ton/h)240
T feedwater in–out (°C)70–130 (170)
RPV height/diameter (m)4.8/2.0
Maximum mass of reactor pressure vessel (ton)46.5
Fuel type/assembly arrayUO2 pellets in silumin matrix
Fuel assembly active length (m)1.2
Number of fuel assemblies121
Core service life (h)21,000
Refueling intervalb (yr)∼3
Refueling outage (days)30–36
Fuel enrichment (%)18.6
Fuel burnup (GWd/t)45.4
Predicted core damage frequency (event/reactor year)0.5·× 10−7
Seismic design9 point on MSK scale
ParametersKLT–40S
Reactor typePWR
Reactor coolant/moderatorLight water
Thermal power (MWth)150
Electric power, gross/net (MWel)38.5/35
Thermal efficiency (%)∼26
Expected capacity factor (%)60–70
Maximum output thermal power (Gcal/h)73
Production of desalinated watera (m3/day)40,000–100,000
Operating range of power (%)10–100
Normal-mode power variation (%/s)0.1
Primary circuit pressure (MPa)12.7
Primary circuit Tin/Tout (°C)280/316
Reactor coolant massflow rate (ton/h)680
Primary circuit circulation modeForced
Power cycleIndirect Rankine cycle
Psteam at SG outlet (MPa)3.72
Tsat at Psteam (°C)246.1
Overheated Tsteam at SG outlet (°C)290
Steam massflow rate (ton/h)240
T feedwater in–out (°C)70–130 (170)
RPV height/diameter (m)4.8/2.0
Maximum mass of reactor pressure vessel (ton)46.5
Fuel type/assembly arrayUO2 pellets in silumin matrix
Fuel assembly active length (m)1.2
Number of fuel assemblies121
Core service life (h)21,000
Refueling intervalb (yr)∼3
Refueling outage (days)30–36
Fuel enrichment (%)18.6
Fuel burnup (GWd/t)45.4
Predicted core damage frequency (event/reactor year)0.5·× 10−7
Seismic design9 point on MSK scale
a

In case of floating nuclear-power desalination complex.

b

The FNThPP will save up to 200,000 metric tons of coal and 100,000 ton of fuel oil per year. Every 12 years, the FNThPP will be towed back to the manufacturing plant and overhauled there.

The barge with two KLT-40S SMRs will be towed to and then put into operation at Pevek, Russia's northernmost city in 2019, where it will gradually replace the Bilibino NPP (see Table 19) and the Chaunskaya combined heat and power plant, which are being retired. Commercial start of these two SMRs is planned for 2019 [23]. Currently, the FNThPP is temporary located in the port of Murmansk (Russia), where, on Nov. 4, 2018, first KLT-40S has reached the minimum controlled power level.

It is very difficult to believe that SMRs somewhere in the future will replace nuclear-power reactors, but they have their own “niche,” in particularly, electricity and heat supplies (also, desalination of water possible) for remote settlements, military bases, mines, etc. around the world.

In general, SMR-based NPPs will have lower thermal efficiencies compared to those of similar type regular NPPs; higher level of fuel enrichment compared to water-cooled nuclear-power reactors to be able to operate for longer periods between refuelings, etc.

Economic and Competitiveness Issues for Nuclear Power Plants

Key to successful deployment of any such new or next generation nuclear concepts or designs is the ability to compete against available energy alternates, especially, in local or national power markets.

Market share is fundamentally determined by price advantage relative to competitors, and conversely, the driving forces for innovation and cost reduction are those of the competitive marketplace [40]. Traditional overall electricity demand, market economics, comparative plant costing, and regulations are covered in great detail elsewhere [4144]. To determine the optimization of cost and size in competitive power markets, the competition for power and energy generation is low capital cost of natural-gas combined-cycle plants with multiple module layouts; and large advanced supercritical-pressure-coal units, both with cycle efficiencies reaching near 60% [43], which are cheaper (on an overnight capital, levelized unit energy cost (LUEC) or cost of energy (COE) basis). The reactor island is a small fraction of the total plant or project costs, so it is evident that technology choice is not the key, as the market has no “favorites.” The real issue is fully optimizing the overall cost and efficiency of the design and performance of any “Technology X” units to meet power- and financial-market requirements, not choosing or developing something that is superficially attractive, but too expensive.

Adverse external key-market developments and challenges to increased nuclear deployment include: (1) the emergence of even lower cost “fracking” technology for natural-gas production; (2) closure and insolvency threats for some U.S. NPPs; (3) the Fukushima NPP accident; (4) the effective bankruptcy and financial/corporate reorganization of three large nuclear-plant manufactures; (5) new build activity dominated by state-supported manufacturers with financing, and/or political guarantees; (6) the utilization of mandatory portfolios, feed-in tariffs and reverse metering preferentially for wind and solar generation. The requirements and internal challenges for any new nuclear concepts/design/technology are, and always will be [1,2,45]:

  • safer than previous “generations”;

  • low financial risk exposure and capital cost;

  • ease and speed of build;

  • readily licensable;

  • simple to operate and secure;

  • assured fuel supply and sustainability;

  • providing social value and acceptance; and, of course;

  • be competitive with respect to lowest costs generation.

The general concept for multiple small units adopts the “learning curve” approach, which has been previously shown to apply for manufacturing, nuclear, and other markets [46,47].

The standard models of discounted cash flow provide generating costs as a function of capital and operating expenses, discount or loan rate, construction time, and other “fixed” and variable costs to determine income and the return on investment [2,4144]. Having set the sales potential, target markets, and performance goals, the approach must combine the plant and market economics in three simple, but interwoven steps for any given conceptual technology:

  • Step 1: Assess the optimum capital, operating, and generating costs as a function of plant output size to determine the system design targets and technical requirements.

  • Step 2: Minimize risk in the cash flow scenario assuming given build constraints and options for single and multiple units to establish investment needs and suitable power purchase agreements or contracts.

  • Step 3: Determine the build profile of unit/plant number and output matching the power market and customer generating needs, establishing the optimum niche and market specific share; then iterate back through the steps 1, 2, and 3 as needed to meet the goals, if necessary changing or even adopting a different technology.

This feedback process must be completed before committing to preliminary design work and reevaluated periodically during the overall design and engineering process. This systematic method provides a coherent business model for both supplier and customer and is also useful as a rapid audit and estimating tool, and to weed out uncompetitive options (details can be found in Ref. [48]).

Capital- and operating-cost reduction is the obvious first target, while licensing, siting, fuel, and decommissioning costs are difficult to reduce substantially. So the objectives are to simplify and “modularize” the design, reducing capital and operating costs, and shortening construction times. Very often, customers require a reference plant for cost, safety, and design comparison purposes. Hence the emphasis for any bid on reducing, optimizing and managing fixed capital and operation and maintenance costs, and on multiple builds based on a “standardized” design for which the usual economic methods exist [44]. The fundamental problem is that a decrease in plant output increases the LUEC/LCOE, because many of the balance of plant and other variable and fixed costs (of site, safety, infrastructure, engineering, decommissioning, and staffing) do not decrease proportionately, so ultimately become dominant as output shrinks.

However, recent build experience in Europe, USA, and China shows that some large plants often require over the nominal 60-months completion time, or experience significant delays in construction or schedule times. Long schedules and delays are the major factor that must be avoided, incurring approximately a linear LUEC/LCOE increase with project timescale. For a given interest rate, it is necessary to optimize the build scenario for the potential of sequentially adding some number of multiple units that can be of any selected size and, hence, cost. This implies the “order book” approach, which is necessary to initiate and commit the program beforehand, as practiced in the aircraft manufacturing industry. Otherwise the first-of-a-kind engineering, design, licensing, and setup costs all have to be absorbed by the first few units. In addition, the cost of multiple units must be reduced by the “learning effect” of an experienced production line for the Nth-of-a-kind units [46,47].

To “fill the order book” is design and market specific, but the maximum ∼50% reduction possible from mass production matches that required to offset the cost of smaller plants/units [48,49]. This result is theoretically based and describes actual data worldwide (Fig. 23).

Fig. 23
Cost reduction versus units produced: composite technology learning curve (based on the data from Refs. [46], [48], and [49]): C/Co—unit cost/initial unit cost and N/No.—number of units produced/initial number
Fig. 23
Cost reduction versus units produced: composite technology learning curve (based on the data from Refs. [46], [48], and [49]): C/Co—unit cost/initial unit cost and N/No.—number of units produced/initial number

The net-cash flow for a multiple-unit build program is calculated as the difference between outgoing operating and debt expenses and the income from power sales, and will be investor and market specific.

Investment in module “factories” is expensive, requires large up-front commitment (for say, options for 100 standardized units per the aircraft industry “order book” approach), and the downside risks must be carefully managed, since, that cost must also be subtracted, or amortized (realized) by or from the sale of many units. Hence, it is self-evident that although small and units cost more for their power and energy, only with multiple builds do they carry significantly less financial risk and for much shorter exposure times.

Although every market is geographically different, they share the same goal of attaining a dynamic balance between supply and demand [4143]. This balance has to occur both during the daily short-term swings in demand, bringing plants “on line”; and, also, in the longer term for meeting future demand projections and units being added and/or retired. The overall approach to meeting demand is obviously “cheapest first,” or a merit order [41,43,50], except, when there is a mandatory feed-in-tariff or reverse metering obligation, or no choice. For any technology, the fraction of the total market power demand that is available for or at a specific cost advantage is proportional to the incremental area under the merit order curve. The result is that the fractional market share is exponentially (and not linearly) dependent on the LUEC/LCOE cost advantage [46].

Obviously, the fractional market share is partly determined by price advantage for a whole range of alternate fuels, at both the national and local levels. For example, new nuclear builds must compete with: coal plants in China, Virginia, and Alberta; hydropower in Washington and Quebec; natural-gas turbines and LNG in USA, Asia, and Europe; state-supported nuclear from and in Russia, China, France, and Korea; with renewable portfolios and FITs in Europe and Canada; and with diesel fuels in remote locations. Detailed energy projections out to 2040 show modest nuclear growth, and state [51]:” Natural gas demand rises the most, largely to help meet the increasing needs for electricity and support increasing industrial demand.”

No clear market or price advantage for current SMR concepts has been shown in recent comparative studies that have been independently published [50,52], emphasizing the need for enhanced competitiveness. The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) estimate is that the global market share by 2035 could be the “high case” 9%, or 3% for the “low case” for some hypothetical/generic SMR “Technology X” [50]. The middle of this range is the worldwide 6% nuclear share or market entry already historically attained, when there is essentially little or no cost advantage [49], so is within the uncertainties due to local market vagaries and variations.

Several key challenges still remain today and in the future, some of which are well known low capital cost and high efficiency of modern natural gas and supercritical-pressure coal-fired power plants, including modular gas turbines and mobile power concepts, are likely to dominate many markets for the next 20 years. This timeframe is sufficient for competitive nonconventional and innovative nuclear-technology developments to emerge that challenge many of the paradigms of the past [53].

Conclusions

  1. (1)

    It is well known that electrical-power generation is the key factor for advances in industry, agriculture, technology, and level of living. Also, strong power industry with diverse energy sources is very important for a country's independence.

  2. (2)

    Major sources for electrical-energy generation in the world today are: (1) thermal— primary coal (38.3%) and secondary natural gas (23.1%); (2) “large” hydro (16.6%); and (3) nuclear (10.4%). The remaining 11.6% of the electrical energy is generated using oil (3.7%) and renewable sources (biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar energy) (7.9%) in selected countries.

  3. (3)

    Other energy sources such as renewable wind-, solar-, marine-power have a visible impact just in some countries, especially, where there are government incentives with electricity prices guaranteed by legislation and power-purchase contracts. However, these apparently attractive renewable-energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) are not reliable as full-time energy sources for industrial-power generation. To overcome this problem, an electrical grid must also include “fast-response” power plants such as gas- (coal-) fired and/or large hydro-power plants.

  4. (4)

    In general, the major driving force for all advances in thermal and nuclear power plants is thermal efficiency and generating costs. Ranges of gross thermal efficiencies of modern power plants are as the following: (1) combined-cycle thermal power plants—up to 62%; (2) supercritical-pressure coal-fired thermal power plants—up to 55%; (3) carbon-dioxide-cooled reactor NPPs—up to 42%; (4) SFR NPP—up to 40%; (5) subcritical-pressure coal-fired thermal power plants—up to 43%; and (6) modern water-cooled-reactor NPPs—30–36% (38%).

  5. (5)

    Combined-cycle thermal power plants with natural-gas fuel are considered as relatively clean fossil-fuel-fired plants compared to coal and oil power plants, and are dominating new capacity additions, because of their relatively lower carbon-dioxide production and lower costs using natural gas, LNG, or natural gas derived from “fracking” processes.

  6. (6)

    Nuclear power is, in general, a nonrenewable source unless fuel recycling, thoria fuel, and/or fast-neutron-spectrum reactors are adopted, which means that nuclear resources can be used significantly longer than some fossil fuels. Currently, this source of energy is considered as the most viable one for base-load electrical generation for the next 50–100 yr.

  7. (7)

    However, all current generations-II and -III and oncoming generation-III+ NPPs, especially, those equipped with water-cooled reactors, are not competitive with modern thermal power plants in terms of thermal efficiency (30–36% (38%) for current NPPs with water-cooled reactors and 55–62% for supercritical-pressure coal-fired and combined-cycle power plants, respectively).

  8. (8)

    Enhancements are needed beyond the current building plans for NPPs. These new designs must compete in the world markets, and if possible, without government subsidies or power-price guarantees. New generation NPPs must have thermal efficiencies close to those of modern thermal power plants, i.e., within a range of at least 40–50%, and incorporate improved safety measures and designs.

  9. (9)

    The major advantages of nuclear power are well known, including cheap reliable base-load power, high capacity factor, low carbon-dioxide emissions, and minor environmental impact. However, these factors are offset today by a competitive disadvantage with natural gas and the occurrence of three significant nuclear accidents (Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island NPPs). The latter have caused significant social disruption together with high capital costs.

  10. (10)

    Currently, 31 countries have operating nuclear-power reactors, and 5 countries plan to build nuclear-power reactors. In addition, 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear-power programs, and about 20 countries have expressed their interest in nuclear power. However, 13 countries with NPPs do not plan to build new nuclear-power reactors. Moreover, such countries as Taiwan, Switzerland, and some others might not proceed with new builds.

  11. (11)

    In October 2018, 451 nuclear-power reactors operated around the world. This number includes 300 PWRS, 72 BWRs, 48 PHWRs, 14 AGRs, 15 LGRs, and 2 LMFBRs. Considering the number of forthcoming reactors, the number of BWRs/ABWRs and PHWRs will possibly decrease within next 20–25 years. Furthermore, within next 10–15 years or so, all AGRs (carbon-dioxide-cooled) and LGRs will be shut down forever. However, instead of carbon-dioxide-cooled AGRs helium-cooled reactors will be built and put into operation.

  12. (12)

    In 2018, several very important milestones have been achieved—first EPR and AP-1000 NPPs have been put into operation in China. In 2019, it is expected that China will put into operation first in the world nuclear-power helium-cooled pebble-bed reactor. Also, in 2016, second SFR-BN-800 was put into operation in Russia.

  13. (13)

    Analysis of the current statistics on nuclear-power reactors of the world shows that we might face a very significant drop (up to three times) in a number of operating nuclear-power reactors somewhere between 2030–2040; if we assume that current operating term of reactors is on average 45 years, and the rate of building and putting into operation new reactors is ∼21 reactors per 5 years. Even with higher rates of new nuclear-capacities additions, we will have a tangible decrease in a number of operating reactors. If this forecast(s) is correct, the nuclear-power industry will face very difficult times ahead.

  14. (14)

    SMRs are today's a very “hot” topic in nuclear engineering worldwide [1,37]. According to the IAEA, there are about 55 SMRs designs/concepts proposed in the world. There is a possibility that in 2019, Russia will put into operation first two SMRs-KLT-40S reactors barge-based as a floating NPP for the Northern regions.

  15. (15)

    In spite of all current advances in nuclear power, NPPs have the following deficiencies: (1) generate radioactive wastes; (2) have relatively low thermal efficiencies, especially, NPPs equipped with water-cooled reactors (up to 1.6 times lower than that for modern advanced thermal power plants; (3) risk of radiation release during severe accidents; and (4) production of nuclear fuel is not an environment-friendly process. Therefore, all these deficiencies should be addressed in next generation—generation IV reactors and NPPs.

Nomenclature

     
  • P =

    pressure, MPa

  •  
  • T =

    temperature, ° C

Subscripts

    Subscripts
     
  • cr =

    critical

  •  
  • el =

    electrical

  •  
  • in =

    inlet

  •  
  • out =

    outlet

  •  
  • sat =

    saturated or saturation

  •  
  • th =

    thermal

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • ABWR =

    advanced boiling water reactor

  •  
  • AECL =

    Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

  •  
  • AGR =

    advanced gas-cooled reactor

  •  
  • AP =

    Advanced Plant (USA)

  •  
  • APR =

    Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (South Korea)

  •  
  • ARIS =

    Advanced Reactors Information System

  •  
  • ASME =

    American Society of Mechanical Engineers

  •  
  • B =

    billion

  •  
  • BN =

    fast sodium (reactor) (in Russian abbreviations)

  •  
  • BWR =

    boiling water reactor

  •  
  • CANDU =

    Canada Deuterium Uranium (reactor)

  •  
  • CAR =

    Central African Republic

  •  
  • COE =

    cost of energy

  •  
  • Corp. =

    corporation

  •  
  • CNNC =

    Chian National Nuclear Corporation

  •  
  • D =

    depth

  •  
  • DAI =

    Department of Atomic Energy (India)

  •  
  • EEC =

    electrical-energy consumption

  •  
  • EGP =

    Power Heterogeneous Loop Reactor (in Russian abbreviations)

  •  
  • EPR =

    European Pressurized-Water Reactor (France)

  •  
  • FNThPP =

    floating nuclear thermal-power plant

  •  
  • GCR =

    gas-cooled reactor

  •  
  • GE =

    General Electric (USA)

  •  
  • HDI =

    human development index

  •  
  • HTR PM =

    high temperature reactor pebble-bed modular (reactor)

  •  
  • IAEA =

    International Atomic Energy Agency

  •  
  • ID =

    inside diameter

  •  
  • JSME =

    Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers

  •  
  • K =

    condensing (in Russian abbreviations)

  •  
  • L =

    length

  •  
  • LGR =

    light-water-cooled graphite-moderated reactor

  •  
  • LMFBR =

    liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor

  •  
  • LMR =

    liquid-metal-cooled reactor

  •  
  • LNG =

    liquefied natural gas

  •  
  • Ltd =

    limited

  •  
  • LUEC =

    levelized unit energy cost

  •  
  • MHI =

    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan)

  •  
  • MSK =

    Medvedev–Sponheuer–Karnik scale

  •  
  • MTM =

    Ministry of Heavy Machine Building (in Russian abbreviations) (Russia)

  •  
  • NASA =

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)

  •  
  • NERS =

    (ASME Journal of) Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science

  •  
  • NOAA =

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)

  •  
  • NPP =

    nuclear power plant

  •  
  • OECD =

    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

  •  
  • PHWR =

    pressurized heavy-water reactor

  •  
  • PV =

    photovoltaic

  •  
  • PWR =

    pressurized water reactor

  •  
  • Q =

    quarter

  •  
  • RBMK =

    Reactor of Large Capacity Channel Type (in Russian abbreviations) (Russia)

  •  
  • R&D =

    research and development

  •  
  • RPV =

    reactor pressure vessel

  •  
  • SFR =

    sodium fast reactor

  •  
  • SG =

    steam generator

  •  
  • SMR =

    small modular reactor, also, small and medium size reactor

  •  
  • SSE =

    safe shutdown earthquake

  •  
  • SVBR =

    lead-bismuth fast reactor (in Russian abbreviations)

  •  
  • FIT =

    feed-in-tariff

  •  
  • ТГВ =

    turbine generator with hydrogen (/water) cooling (in Russian abbreviations)

  •  
  • UAE =

    United Arab Emirates

  •  
  • UK =

    United Kingdom

  •  
  • UOIT =

    University of Ontario Institute of Technology

  •  
  • VVER =

    water power reactor (in Russian abbreviations) (Russia)

  •  
  • W =

    width

  •  
  • WNA =

    World Nuclear Association

Appendix

Table 21

Population, EEC, and HDI in all countries of the worlda

EECc (2015-2017)
HDIb rank (2017)CountryHDIb (2017)W/capitaGW·hPopulation in millions (2018)
Very high HDI
 1Norway0.9532740133,1005.35
 2Switzerland0.94480958,4508.54
 3Australia0.9391112223,60024.77
 4Ireland0.93857623,7904.80
 5Germany0.936753514,60082.29
 6Iceland0.935577717,9800.34
 7Hong Kong0.93366844,0307.43
 8Sweden0.9331467125,4009.98
 9Singapore0.93293148,6305.79
 10Netherlands0.931724106,00017.08
 11Denmark0.92965331,4105.75
 12Canada0.9261704516,60036.95
 13United States0.92413773,911,000326.76
 14United Kingdom0.922547301,60066.57
 15Finland0.920168185,1505.54
 16New Zealand0.917102038,7504.74
 17Belgium0.91681081,96011.49
 18Liechtenstein0.91640923940.04
 19Japan0.909841933,600127.18
 20Austria0.90891370,7008.75
 21Luxembourg0.904121561780.59
 22Israel0.90383552,7808.45
 23South Korea0.9031109497,00051.16
 24France0.901736436,10065.23
 25Slovenia0.89675016,5602.08
 26Spain0.891550240,40046.39
 27Czech Republic0.88864361,16010.62
 28Italy0.880535296,00059.29
 29Malta0.87854921030.43
 30Estonia0.87174376641.31
 31Greece0.87056153,05011.14
 32Cyprus0.86936940281.19
 33Poland0.865420141,30038.10
 34United Arab Emirates0.8631848110,6009.54
 35Andorra0.8587492220.08
 36Lithuania0.85839598482.87
 37Qatar0.856171836,5302.69
 38Slovakia0.85559425,8705.45
 39Brunei0.85398436790.43
 40Saudi Arabia0.8531102292,80033.55
 41Latvia0.84739467121.93
 42Portugal0.84748447,03010.29
 43Bahrain0.846206926,0901.56
 44Chile0.84342667,95018.19
 45Hungary0.83824938,6609.69
 46Croatia0.83144918,6504.16
 47Argentina0.825301122,50044.68
 48Oman0.82185027,6204.82
 49Russia0.816854890,100143.96
 50Montenegro0.814495516,6000.63
 51Bulgaria0.81349535,2407.03
 52Romania0.81125348,28019.58
 53Belarus0.80839331,7509.45
 54Bahamas0.80755816810.40
 55Uruguay0.80434094203.47
 56Kuwait0.803217654,1104.19
 57Malaysia0.802483133,00032.04
 58Barbados0.8003529440.29
 59Kazakhstan0.80056597,60018.40
High HDI
 60Iran0.798300220,90082.01
 61Palau0.798--0.02
 62Seychelles0.7973673660.01
 63Costa Rica0.79421591134.95
 64Turkey0.791294213,20081.91
 65Mauritius0.79022026801.26
 66Panama0.78924082024.16
 67Serbia0.78743026,7808.76
 68Albania0.78529270942.93
 69Trinidad & Tobago0.78485194611.37
 70Antigua & Barbuda0.7803653070.10
 71Georgia0.78022712,4403.91
 72Saint Kitts & Nevis0.7784361930.06
 73Cuba0.7776817,34011.49
 74Mexico0.774220245,200130.76
 75Grenada0.7722051850.11
 76Sri Lanka0.7705611,72020.95
 77Bosnia & Herzegovina0.76832511,4403.50
 78Venezuela0.76128873,99032.38
 79Brazil0.759287460,800210.86
 80Azerbaijan0.75723120,2709.92
 81 Lebanon0.75729215,6606.09
 82Macedonia0.75737864552.08
 83Armenia0.75519053312.93
 84Thailand0.755274168,30069.18
 85Algeria0.75413853,44042.01
 86China0.7525105,920,0001415.05
 87Ecuador0.75214927,53016.86
 88Ukraine0.751369133,40044.01
 89Peru0.75014440,93032.55
 90Colombia0.74714560,11049.46
 91Saint Lucia0.7472083330.18
 92Fiji0.741998280.91
 93Mongolia0.74121071033.12
 94Dominican Republic0.73616213,25010.88
 95Jordan0.73522316,1309.90
 96Tunisia0.73515315,12011.66
 97Jamaica0.73210731732.89
World0.72837024,816,0007658.82
 98Tonga0.72649470.11
 99St. Vincent & The Grenadines0.7231111440.11
 100Suriname0.72037019480.57
 101Botswana0.71219137222.33
 102Maldives0.712873260.44
 103Dominica0.715139870.07
 104Samoa0.7132101180.20
 105Uzbekistan0.71018548,00032.36
 106Belize0.7081294130.38
 107Marshall Islands0.7089335770.05
 108Libya0.70616281316.47
 109Turkmenistan0.70628015,0905.85
 110Gabon0.70213719072.06
 111Paraguay0.70216110,4706.89
 112Moldova0.70013936694.04
Medium HDI
 113Philippines0.69910177,790106.51
 114South Africa0.699445207,70057.40
 115Egypt0.696172150,40099.37
 116Indonesia0.69486223,500266.79
 117Vietnam0.694149182,90096.49
 118Bolivia0.69378898111.21
 119Palestine0.686-
 120Iraq0.68512566,00039.33
 121El Salvador0.67410563446.41
 122Kyrgyzstan0.67221910,6806.13
 123Morocco0.6679826,83036.19
 124Nicaragua0.6588431776.28
 125Cabo Verde0.654614360.55
 126Guyana0.6541248000.78
 127Guatemala0.6506610,02017.24
 128Tajikistan0.65016412,9409.10
 129Namibia0.64717337712.58
 130India0.6401281,048,0001354.05
 131Micronesia0.6271941790.11
 132East Timor0.625111251.32
 133Honduras0.6176872159.41
 134Kiribati0.61229220.12
 135Bhutan0.61231720090.82
 136Bangladesh0.6084048,980166.36
 137Republic of Congo0.606139015.40
 138Vanuatu0.60322680.28
 139Laos0.6016342396.96
 140Ghana0.5923911,42029.46
 141Equatorial Guinea0.591133951.31
 142Kenya0.59018951550.95
 143São Tomé & Príncipe0.58937610.21
 144Swaziland0.58811715001.39
 145Zambia0.5888011,62017.61
 146Cambodia0.58229495216.24
 147Angola0.58145833830.77
 148Myanmar0.5782211,00053.85
 149Nepal0.57415477729.62
 150Pakistan0.5624685,900200.81
 151Cameroon0.55628570224.67
 152Solomon Islands0.54614840.62
Low HDI
 153Papua New Guinea0.5445010158.41
 154Tanzania0.53810497659.01
 155Syria0.53611213,96018.28
 156Zimbabwe0.53562763016.91
 157Nigeria0.5321424,570195.87
 158Rwanda0.524464412.50
 159Lesotho0.520467632.26
 160Mauritania0.5202411084.54
 161Madagascar0.5196110826.26
 162Uganda0.5168293644.27
 163Benin0.51510112111.48
 164Senegal0.50523301416.29
 165Comoros0.5035500.83
 166Togo0.5031612137.99
 167Sudan0.5023010,26041.51
 168Haiti0.498437211.11
 169Afghanistan0.49816286636.37
 170Ivory Coast0.49227566924.9
 171Malawi0.47711197219,16
 172Djibouti0.476533770.97
 173Ethiopia0.46378143107.53
 174Gambia0.460172232.16
 175Guinea0.459893013.05
 176Democratic Republic of Congo0.45713719084.00
 177Guinea-Bissau0.4552321.91
 178Yemen0.45221363428.91
 179Eritrea0.44053305.18
 180Mozambique0.4375213,86030.52
 181Liberia0.4357394.85
 182Mali0.42712202319.11
 183Burkina Faso0.4238132119.75
 184Sierra Leone0.41931637.72
 185Burundi0.417430411.21
 186Chad0.404120015.35
 187South Sudan0.388669412.91
 188Central African Republic0.36741624.73
 189Niger0.3547107222.31
EECc (2015-2017)
HDIb rank (2017)CountryHDIb (2017)W/capitaGW·hPopulation in millions (2018)
Very high HDI
 1Norway0.9532740133,1005.35
 2Switzerland0.94480958,4508.54
 3Australia0.9391112223,60024.77
 4Ireland0.93857623,7904.80
 5Germany0.936753514,60082.29
 6Iceland0.935577717,9800.34
 7Hong Kong0.93366844,0307.43
 8Sweden0.9331467125,4009.98
 9Singapore0.93293148,6305.79
 10Netherlands0.931724106,00017.08
 11Denmark0.92965331,4105.75
 12Canada0.9261704516,60036.95
 13United States0.92413773,911,000326.76
 14United Kingdom0.922547301,60066.57
 15Finland0.920168185,1505.54
 16New Zealand0.917102038,7504.74
 17Belgium0.91681081,96011.49
 18Liechtenstein0.91640923940.04
 19Japan0.909841933,600127.18
 20Austria0.90891370,7008.75
 21Luxembourg0.904121561780.59
 22Israel0.90383552,7808.45
 23South Korea0.9031109497,00051.16
 24France0.901736436,10065.23
 25Slovenia0.89675016,5602.08
 26Spain0.891550240,40046.39
 27Czech Republic0.88864361,16010.62
 28Italy0.880535296,00059.29
 29Malta0.87854921030.43
 30Estonia0.87174376641.31
 31Greece0.87056153,05011.14
 32Cyprus0.86936940281.19
 33Poland0.865420141,30038.10
 34United Arab Emirates0.8631848110,6009.54
 35Andorra0.8587492220.08
 36Lithuania0.85839598482.87
 37Qatar0.856171836,5302.69
 38Slovakia0.85559425,8705.45
 39Brunei0.85398436790.43
 40Saudi Arabia0.8531102292,80033.55
 41Latvia0.84739467121.93
 42Portugal0.84748447,03010.29
 43Bahrain0.846206926,0901.56
 44Chile0.84342667,95018.19
 45Hungary0.83824938,6609.69
 46Croatia0.83144918,6504.16
 47Argentina0.825301122,50044.68
 48Oman0.82185027,6204.82
 49Russia0.816854890,100143.96
 50Montenegro0.814495516,6000.63
 51Bulgaria0.81349535,2407.03
 52Romania0.81125348,28019.58
 53Belarus0.80839331,7509.45
 54Bahamas0.80755816810.40
 55Uruguay0.80434094203.47
 56Kuwait0.803217654,1104.19
 57Malaysia0.802483133,00032.04
 58Barbados0.8003529440.29
 59Kazakhstan0.80056597,60018.40
High HDI
 60Iran0.798300220,90082.01
 61Palau0.798--0.02
 62Seychelles0.7973673660.01
 63Costa Rica0.79421591134.95
 64Turkey0.791294213,20081.91
 65Mauritius0.79022026801.26
 66Panama0.78924082024.16
 67Serbia0.78743026,7808.76
 68Albania0.78529270942.93
 69Trinidad & Tobago0.78485194611.37
 70Antigua & Barbuda0.7803653070.10
 71Georgia0.78022712,4403.91
 72Saint Kitts & Nevis0.7784361930.06
 73Cuba0.7776817,34011.49
 74Mexico0.774220245,200130.76
 75Grenada0.7722051850.11
 76Sri Lanka0.7705611,72020.95
 77Bosnia & Herzegovina0.76832511,4403.50
 78Venezuela0.76128873,99032.38
 79Brazil0.759287460,800210.86
 80Azerbaijan0.75723120,2709.92
 81 Lebanon0.75729215,6606.09
 82Macedonia0.75737864552.08
 83Armenia0.75519053312.93
 84Thailand0.755274168,30069.18
 85Algeria0.75413853,44042.01
 86China0.7525105,920,0001415.05
 87Ecuador0.75214927,53016.86
 88Ukraine0.751369133,40044.01
 89Peru0.75014440,93032.55
 90Colombia0.74714560,11049.46
 91Saint Lucia0.7472083330.18
 92Fiji0.741998280.91
 93Mongolia0.74121071033.12
 94Dominican Republic0.73616213,25010.88
 95Jordan0.73522316,1309.90
 96Tunisia0.73515315,12011.66
 97Jamaica0.73210731732.89
World0.72837024,816,0007658.82
 98Tonga0.72649470.11
 99St. Vincent & The Grenadines0.7231111440.11
 100Suriname0.72037019480.57
 101Botswana0.71219137222.33
 102Maldives0.712873260.44
 103Dominica0.715139870.07
 104Samoa0.7132101180.20
 105Uzbekistan0.71018548,00032.36
 106Belize0.7081294130.38
 107Marshall Islands0.7089335770.05
 108Libya0.70616281316.47
 109Turkmenistan0.70628015,0905.85
 110Gabon0.70213719072.06
 111Paraguay0.70216110,4706.89
 112Moldova0.70013936694.04
Medium HDI
 113Philippines0.69910177,790106.51
 114South Africa0.699445207,70057.40
 115Egypt0.696172150,40099.37
 116Indonesia0.69486223,500266.79
 117Vietnam0.694149182,90096.49
 118Bolivia0.69378898111.21
 119Palestine0.686-
 120Iraq0.68512566,00039.33
 121El Salvador0.67410563446.41
 122Kyrgyzstan0.67221910,6806.13
 123Morocco0.6679826,83036.19
 124Nicaragua0.6588431776.28
 125Cabo Verde0.654614360.55
 126Guyana0.6541248000.78
 127Guatemala0.6506610,02017.24
 128Tajikistan0.65016412,9409.10
 129Namibia0.64717337712.58
 130India0.6401281,048,0001354.05
 131Micronesia0.6271941790.11
 132East Timor0.625111251.32
 133Honduras0.6176872159.41
 134Kiribati0.61229220.12
 135Bhutan0.61231720090.82
 136Bangladesh0.6084048,980166.36
 137Republic of Congo0.606139015.40
 138Vanuatu0.60322680.28
 139Laos0.6016342396.96
 140Ghana0.5923911,42029.46
 141Equatorial Guinea0.591133951.31
 142Kenya0.59018951550.95
 143São Tomé & Príncipe0.58937610.21
 144Swaziland0.58811715001.39
 145Zambia0.5888011,62017.61
 146Cambodia0.58229495216.24
 147Angola0.58145833830.77
 148Myanmar0.5782211,00053.85
 149Nepal0.57415477729.62
 150Pakistan0.5624685,900200.81
 151Cameroon0.55628570224.67
 152Solomon Islands0.54614840.62
Low HDI
 153Papua New Guinea0.5445010158.41
 154Tanzania0.53810497659.01
 155Syria0.53611213,96018.28
 156Zimbabwe0.53562763016.91
 157Nigeria0.5321424,570195.87
 158Rwanda0.524464412.50
 159Lesotho0.520467632.26
 160Mauritania0.5202411084.54
 161Madagascar0.5196110826.26
 162Uganda0.5168293644.27
 163Benin0.51510112111.48
 164Senegal0.50523301416.29
 165Comoros0.5035500.83
 166Togo0.5031612137.99
 167Sudan0.5023010,26041.51
 168Haiti0.498437211.11
 169Afghanistan0.49816286636.37
 170Ivory Coast0.49227566924.9
 171Malawi0.47711197219,16
 172Djibouti0.476533770.97
 173Ethiopia0.46378143107.53
 174Gambia0.460172232.16
 175Guinea0.459893013.05
 176Democratic Republic of Congo0.45713719084.00
 177Guinea-Bissau0.4552321.91
 178Yemen0.45221363428.91
 179Eritrea0.44053305.18
 180Mozambique0.4375213,86030.52
 181Liberia0.4357394.85
 182Mali0.42712202319.11
 183Burkina Faso0.4238132119.75
 184Sierra Leone0.41931637.72
 185Burundi0.417430411.21
 186Chad0.404120015.35
 187South Sudan0.388669412.91
 188Central African Republic0.36741624.73
 189Niger0.3547107222.31
a

Population from Ref. [7] (data for 2018); EEC from Ref. [8] (data mainly from 2017–2015; for exact details see the reference); and HDI from [9,10] (data from 2017).

b

HDI—human development index by United Nations (UN); HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. HDI is calculated by the following formula: HDI=LEI×EI×II3, where LEI—life expectancy index, EI—education index, and II—income index. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing, or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

c

EEC,Wcapita=EEC,(GWh/yr)×(109/(365days×24h))(population,millions)×106; EEC compares the total electricity generated annually plus imports and minus exports, expressed in gigawatt-hours (GW·h).

References

References
1.
Pioro
,
I. L.
, ed.,
2016
,
Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
,
Elsevier–Woodhead Publishing (WP)
,
Duxford, UK
, p.
940
.
2.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Duffey
,
R.
,
2018
, “
Current Status of Electricity Generation in the World and Future of Nuclear Power Industry
,”
Managing Global Warming: An Interface of Technology and Human Issues
,
T.
Letcher
, ed.,
Academic Press
,
London
, pp.
67
114
.
3.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Duffey
,
R.
,
2015
, “
Nuclear Power as a Basis for Future Electricity Generation
,”
ASME J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci.
,
1
(
1
), p.
011001
.
4.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Kirillov
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Current Status of Electricity Generation in the World
,”
Materials and Processes for Energy: Communicating Current Research and Technological Developments
(Energy Book Series #1),
A.
Méndez-Vilas
, ed.,
Formatex Research Center
,
Badajoz, Spain
, pp.
783
795
.
5.
NASA, 2018, “
Earth at Night
,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/earthday/gall_earth_night.html
6.
Worldometers, 2018, “
Countries in the World by Population (2018)
,” accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
7.
CIA, 2018, “The World Fact Book,” Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2233rank.html
8.
UNDP, 2018 “
Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update
,” United Nations Development Programme, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf
9.
IEA, 2018, “
Data & Publications
,” International Energy Agency, Paris, France, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/2261?filename=electricity_information_%202018_overview.pdf
10.
The Global Energiewende, 2017, “
Germany's Energy Consumption in 2017
,” Global Energiewende, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://energytransition.org/2018/01/german-energy-consumption-2017/
11.
Energy Matters, 2017, “
UK Grid January 2017 and The Perfect Storm
,” Energy Matters, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://euanmearns.com/uk-grid-january-2017-and-the-perfect-storm/
12.
Ofgem, 2018, “
Electricity Generation Mix by Quarter and Fuel Source (GB)
,” Ofgem, London, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
13.
Utility Week, 2018, “
Low-Carbon Generation Supplies Half Britain's Power
,” Utility Week, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://utilityweek.co.uk/low-carbon-generation-supplies-half-britains-power/
14.
EIA, 2018, “
Electric Power Monthly
,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
15.
FAO, 2017, “
An Assessment of the Financial Risks of the Nuclear Refurbishment Plan
,” Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FAO-NR-Report-Nov-2017
16.
Ontario Energy Board, 2018, “
Ontario Energy Board
,” Toronto, ON, Canada, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/
17.
Ontario Energy Board, 2018, “
Electricity Data, Third Quarter 2018
,” Ontario Energy Board, Toronto, ON, Canada, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.ontarioenergyreport.ca/
18.
IESO, 2018, “
Data Directory
,” Independent Electricity System Operator, Toronto, ON, Canada, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://ieso.ca/Power-Data/Data-Directory
19.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Kirillov
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Current Status of Electricity Generation at Thermal Power Plants
,”
Materials and Processes for Energy: Communicating Current Research and Technological Developments
(Energy Book Series #1),
A.
Méndez-Vilas
, ed.,
Formatex Research Center
,
Badajoz, Spain
, p.
796
.
20.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2006, “
Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation
,” Postnote, October, 2006, No. 268, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-268/POST-PN-268.pdf
21.
Wang, B., 2011, “
Deaths Per TWH by Energy Source
,” Dated March 14, 2011, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
22.
Parliament of UK, 2005, “
Memorandum Submitted by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) (U16)
,” Parliament of UK, London, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvfru/130/130we13.htm
23.
ANS,
2018
, “
Nuclear News
,” Reference Special Section—March, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, pp.
39
71
.
24.
WNA, 2018, “
World Nuclear Association (WNA)
,” London, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.world-nuclear.org/
25.
PRIS, 2018, “
Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://pris.iaea.org/
26.
ANS
,
2011
, “
Nuclear News
,” Reference Special Section—March, American Nuclear Society (ANS), La Grange Park, IL, Mar., pp.
45
78
.
27.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Kirillov
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Current Status of Electricity Generation at Nuclear Power Plants
,”
Materials and Processes for Energy: Communicating Current Research and Technological Developments
(Energy Book Series #1),
Formatex Research Center
,
Badajoz, Spain
, pp.
806
817
.
28.
Cacuci
,
D. G.
, ed.,
2010
,
Reactors of Generations III and IV
, Vol. 4,
Springer
,
New York
, pp.
2185
2894
.
29.
Ryzhov
,
S. B.
,
Mokhov
,
V. A.
,
Nikitenko
,
M. P.
,
Pobshibyakin
,
A. K.
,
Schekin
,
I. G.
, and
Churkin
,
A. N.
,
2010
, “
Advanced Designs of VVER Reactor Plant
,”
Eighth International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Thermal-Hydraulics, Operation and Safety (NUTHOS-8)
,
Shanghai, China
,
Oct. 10–14
, Paper No.
N8P0184
.https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:42016147
30.
Flickr, 2018, “
Album
,” Flickr, San Francisco, CA, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosatom/albums
31.
AREVA, 2018, “
The Path of Greatest Certainty
,” AREVA SA, Paris, France, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.epr-reactor.co.uk/ssmod/liblocal/docs/EPR%20Interactive/Brochures/300709_EPR_52pages.pdf
32.
ANS
,
2015
, “
Nuclear News
,” Reference Special Section—March, American Nuclear Society (ANS), La Grange Park, IL, Spain, pp.
39
72
.
33.
ANS
,
2017
, “
Nuclear News
,” Reference Special Section—March, American Nuclear Society (ANS), La Grange Park, IL, Spain, pp.
33
65
.
34.
Pioro
,
R.
,
Zvorykin
,
A.
,
Rachid
,
M.
, and
Pioro
,
I.
,
2018
, “
Study on Current Status and Future Developments in Nuclear-Power Industry of the World
,”
26th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE-26), London
,
July 22–26
, Paper No. #82085.
35.
GEN IV, 2018, "Generation IV Systems," Generation IV International Forum (GIF), Washington, DC, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_59461/generation-iv-systems
36.
Pioro
,
I. L.
, and
Duffey
,
R. B.
,
2007
,
Heat Transfer and Hydraulic Resistance at Supercritical Pressures in Power Engineering Applications
,
ASME Press
,
New York
, p.
334
.
37.
Saltanov
,
E.
, and
Pioro
,
I.
,
2011
, “
World Experience in Nuclear Steam Reheat
,”
Nuclear Power: Operation, Safety and Environment
,
P. V.
Tsvetkov
, ed.,
Intech
,
Rijeka, Croatia
, pp.
3
28
.
38.
IAEA,
2018
,
Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments
,
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
, p.
250
.
39.
EDBOE, 2018, “
JCS ‘AFRIJANTOV OKBM’
,” Experimental Engineering Design Bureau, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/upload/iblock/525/525fc6c42d8d70f418de75555d609a23.pdf
40.
WNN, 2018, “
Russia Loads Fuel Into Floating Power Plant
,” World Nuclear News, Oct. 3, 2018, World Nuclear Association, London, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-loads-fuel-into-floating-power-plant
41.
Taylor
,
E. O.
, and
Boal
,
G. A.
, eds.,
1969
,
Power System Economics
,
Edward Arnold
,
London
.
42.
Rothwell
,
G.
, and
Gomez
,
T.
, eds.,
2003
, “
Regulation and Deregulation
,”
Electricity Economics
,
IEEE
,
New York
, p.
304
.
43.
OECD/NEA
,
2015
, “
Projected Costs of Generating Electricity
,” Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-electricity-2015.pdf
44.
Tarjanne
,
R.
,
2004
, “
The New Nuclear Power Plant in Finland
,”
NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Baltic Energy Security and Independence
,
Vilnius, Lithuania
,
June 21–23
.
45.
Pioro
,
I.
, and
Duffey
,
R.
,
2018
, “
Current and Future Nuclear-Power Reactors and Plants
,”
Managing Global Warming, An Interface of Technology and Human Issues
,
T.
Letcher
, ed.,
Academic Press
,
London
, pp. 117–197.
46.
Duffey
,
R. B.
,
2004
, “
Innovation in Technology for the Least Product Price and Cost—A New Minimum Cost Relation for Reductions During Technological Learning
,”
Int. J. Energy Technol. Policy
,
2
(
1/2
), pp.
106
129
.
47.
Wright
,
T. P.
,
1936
, “
Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes
,”
J. Aeronaut. Sci.
,
3
(
4
), pp.
122
128
.
48.
Duffey
,
R. B.
,
2018
, “
Size and Cost Optimization of Nuclear Reactors in Energy Markets: The Need for New Approaches and Advances
,”
First International Conference on Generation IV and Small Reactors
, CNS, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Nov. 6–8.http://www.g4sr.org/proc/html_files/4427.html
49.
Duffey
,
R. B.
, and
Saull
,
J. W.
,
2008
,
Managing Risk
,
Wiley
,
Chichester, UK
, p.
568
.
50.
OECD/NEA
,
2016
, “
Small Modular Reactors: Nuclear Energy Market Potential for Near-Term Deployment
,” Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Boulogne-Billancourt, France, Report No.
NEA 7213
.https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7213-smrs.pdf
51.
Exxon Mobil
,
2018
, “
Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040
,” Exxon Mobil, Irving, TX, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, https://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/outlook-for-energy/2018/2018-outlook-for-energy.pdf
52.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Government of South Australia
,
2016
, “
Quantitative Analysis and Initial Business Case—Establishing a Nuclear Power Plant and Systems in South Australia
,” Adelaide, SA, accessed Oct. 19, 2018, http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/02/Parsons-Brinckerhoff.pdf
53.
Carelli
,
M. D.
and
Ingersoll
,
D. T.
, eds.,
2014
,
Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
, 1st ed.,
Elsevier
,
Duxford, UK
, p.
536
.