Toyota investing additional $391M in San Antonio truck assembly plant
Ascend launching new high-temperature and long-chain polyamides for automotive

CEA, EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome unveil jointly developed Small Modular Reactor (SMR) NUWARD

During the IAEA General Conference in Vienna, France’s CEA, EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome unveiled “NUWARD”, their jointly developed small modular reactor (SMR) project, a pressurized water reactor (PWR)-based solution in the 300-400 MWe range.

NUWARD will benefit from best-in-class French technologies from more than 50 years of experience in PWR design, development, construction and more than 2,000 reactor years of PWR operating experience.

Based on this proven technology, NUWARD will be a modular solution introducing some significant innovations with major benefits to the operator and product’s competitiveness: the compactness and simplicity of an integrated design; flexibility for construction and operation; innovative safety approach in line with world’s best standards.

Skills in research and qualification from CEA, systems integration and operation from EDF, structures and modular experience from Naval Group as well as compact reactor design expertise from TechnicAtome contribute to these objectives.

In line with NUWARD ambition to serve the global market with a competitive solution in the late 2020s, the NUWARD partners are open to international cooperation, notably to foster the harmonization of regulation, the standardization of design and design optimization.

CEA and EDF have initiated discussions with Westinghouse Electric Company to explore potential cooperation on small modular reactor (SMR) development.



300-400 MWe is pretty big for a Small Modular reactor.
But I suppose it is better than a 1500 MWe monster.


I am curious whether this design is small enough so that the components can be build in a factory and shipped to site. The NuScale reactors are 0nly 60 MW but can be shipped by rail or truck although the truck trailer appeared to have 100 axles.


Another article on this reactor claims that the output would be 170 MW per reactor but that they would be used in pairs. They are not likely to be deployed until about 2030.


Will mass produced factory built reduced size 170 MW SMRs be cheaper to build and install and small enough to be transportable by train or trucks?

What will be the cost advantage?


The Nuscale modules were quoted as 50/ 60MW /650ton (wiki) with underground bunkered halls of up to12 modules. The truck and trailer assume 100ton so the rig would realign most roads as it passed.
Hardly likely to see these on most roads.
The latest wind farm proposed ? approved? i .au is rated at 1 000MW vs ~ 700MW suggests equivalence.
A shipboard install would likely be built on dock yard site and partly in situ.
The on water Russian reactor is apparently headed for use in the Arctic where melting ice makes drilling and pumping oil attractive to the oil and gas industry.
Go figure?


1000 MW windpower is the functional equivalent of about 180 to 200 MW nuclear power if you can store the power from the wind turbines when it is available and that is a major if.


Most starting points begin with some level of 'if
Climate instigated extinctions are historically factual.
To be thinking nuclear power will solve every need is a non starter.
Govt's and people see many sound reasons to resist so it really doesn't matter what we as citizens think when faced with facts we just get on with finding solutions.
Within the last month we have seen the best Russian efforts in the nuclear industry make a show of blowing themselves to smithers but we are told the atom is a wonder peacemaker and so very safe.
The saga continues.


Transporting a NuScale would be trivial if the transporters used mostly air-cushion support and kept wheels largely for guidance.

NuScale is still a PWR and needs a thick, heavy steel vessel to hold the pressure.  A LMFBR of the same thermal power (e.g. Fermi 1) would be far lighter due to running at atmospheric pressure, and substantially bigger units could be shipped so long as the physical dimensions were not excessive.  Given that a LMFBR dispenses with things like pressurizers, that doesn't seem too difficult.

As bonuses,

  1. the LMFBR runs at much higher temperature and will have higher thermal efficiency and greater electric output, and
  2. the unit can be air-cooled in shutdown and thus can be designed to need no active emergency cooling, from water or otherwise.

To be thinking nuclear power will solve every need is a non starter.

It works in steel tubes under the ocean.  Literally nothing else does, or can.

Govt's and people see many sound reasons to resist

The reasons are bogus and/or having to do with protecting the same fossil fuel industry which is killing the planet.  Right now, nuclear fission is the only scalable non-emitting dispatchable energy source we have.  We are already 30 years too late in getting started; we have no more time to waste on "sound reasons" to avoid keeping our planet habitable.


There are many subjects that elicit differences in opinion. Some are easily agreed on by referencing the evidence. Human reasoning is usually informed firstly by emotion and in Most Cases rational reasoning or logic conflicts. Neither wishing or rationalising can bring results without the doing.

It is not hard to to understand how the earths climate evolved towards the extended period of stability that has allowed the familiar lifeforms to evolve. Without geological sequestration of carbon via living organisms the planet would have evolved in a completely different way. Carbon cycling lifeforms have created the current favourable conditions we enjoy today when we are witnessing the reversal of that process by industrial scale extraction is at a scale and speed unseen in geological history.

Comments especially on the upward scalability of e generation towards national grids risk ignoring advantages and possibilities of scaling down to 'distributed .
Without dismissing that there exist examples of extremely high end energy demand those generating plants equally don't scale down.
Concentrating powers including governance has a history of sorry outcomes for the masses.

Its nice to think the can have cake and eat it too approach is in reach when faced with such wicked problems at unfavourable odds a moderated approach may buy time to develop a sustainable way.

Meanwhile weapons sales and proliferation and nationalistic militarism by the same actors intent on not acting for a sustainable future generally would seem to be throwing petrol on any effort.

Comments especially on the upward scalability of e generation towards national grids risk ignoring advantages and possibilities of scaling down to 'distributed.

Some technologies only work at substantial scale.  The ultimate "scaling down to distributed" at the building level means everyone has their own natural gas or diesel generator; in other words, stuck on fossil fuel for eternity.  This is also the antithesis of continent-spanning grids required to shift "renewable" generation from where it is at the moment to where it is needed... assuming it's available in sufficient quantity.  If not, who does without?

Without dismissing that there exist examples of extremely high end energy demand those generating plants equally don't scale down.

I can't even parse this sentence, but if you expect to have industrial civilization and modern sanitation you have to serve its energy needs 99.99% of the time without fail.  I'm still waiting for an existence proof that this can scale down (including the production required for its own expansion).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)