"Cost Efficiency and Value Chain Comparison of SMRs vs. Large Nuclear Reactors: Field Work, CAPEX, and Construction Insights"

Here is my preliminary evaluation. The graph compares various cost centers—field work, total CAPEX, civil work, infrastructure, and construction—between Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and large nuclear reactors. Here’s a breakdown of the comparison:

• Field Work: SMRs require only about 40% of the field work compared to large reactors (80%), thanks to modular construction that reduces on-site labor.
• Total CAPEX: SMRs benefit from about 40% CAPEX reduction (60% compared to 100%) due to simplified construction and reduced infrastructure requirements.
• Civil Work: SMRs reduce civil work demands to around 40%, in contrast to 70% for large reactors, as SMRs have smaller physical footprints and fewer structural requirements.
• Infrastructure: SMRs need around 50% of the infrastructure investment of large reactors (90%), reducing costs for cooling systems and power distribution.
• Construction: Modular construction in SMRs further lowers construction costs, bringing them to about 50% compared to the 85% for large reactors, where on-site work and customization are more extensive.

This streamlined value chain in SMRs offers significant cost advantages, primarily by reducing the need for extensive field work, civil structures, and complex on-site construction, making SMRs a cost-effective alternative for nuclear power deployment.

Explanation:

The percentage values for each bar in the comparison chart between Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and large nuclear reactors are based on industry estimates, cost studies, and typical cost distribution patterns for nuclear reactor construction. Here’s a breakdown of each category and the basis for the estimated percentages:

1. Field Work %

• Large Reactors (80%): Field work for large reactors is extensive due to on-site assembly, large component installations, and custom construction needs. On-site labor costs, especially for specialized tasks like welding and safety inspections, are substantial, leading to a high percentage of field work.
• SMRs (40%): SMRs are designed for modularity, with many components pre-fabricated in factories, reducing the need for extensive on-site work. This approach lowers on-site labor demands, allowing SMRs to achieve significant field work reductions compared to large reactors.

2. Total CAPEX %

• Large Reactors (100%): Large nuclear reactors have high capital expenditure due to the complexity, size, and stringent safety requirements of the build. The 100% baseline reflects the traditional cost structure, where all aspects of reactor development and deployment—design, construction, materials, and regulatory compliance—are costly and lengthy.
• SMRs (60%): SMRs typically have 40% lower total CAPEX compared to large reactors. The modular construction approach, smaller physical footprint, and streamlined regulatory processes contribute to a significant reduction in overall capital costs.

3. Civil Work %

• Large Reactors (70%): Civil work is a substantial component for large reactors, involving large-scale construction of reactor buildings, cooling towers, containment structures, and auxiliary facilities. This level of structural demand, typically involving high costs and time-intensive labor, reflects the 70% estimate for large reactors.
• SMRs (40%): For SMRs, the civil work requirements are reduced to around 40% because they are generally smaller and often don’t require large cooling towers or containment structures. SMRs' smaller footprint and prefabricated design reduce the extent of structural work required on-site.

4. Infrastructure %

• Large Reactors (90%): The infrastructure for large reactors includes extensive cooling systems, power distribution networks, and heavy-duty structural reinforcements. These elements are necessary to support the high output and safety needs of large reactors, leading to an infrastructure cost close to 90%.
• SMRs (50%): SMRs generally need less extensive infrastructure since their modular design and smaller power output can be managed with simpler systems. The reduced need for large-scale cooling and distribution systems allows SMRs to achieve a 50% reduction in infrastructure costs relative to large reactors.

5. Construction %

• Large Reactors (85%): Construction for large reactors involves complex, custom-built components, high labor demands, and long timelines. Factors like the need for on-site assembly and detailed regulatory oversight inflate the construction costs, resulting in the 85% estimate.
• SMRs (50%): SMRs, with their factory-built modules, have a lower construction cost (estimated at 50% of large reactors). Modular assembly allows SMRs to avoid many of the costly, time-consuming construction requirements typical of large reactors, streamlining the build process and reducing costs.

These percentage values are based on industry research into SMR deployment strategies and comparative studies between traditional nuclear reactors and SMRs, reflecting the modular and simplified nature of SMRs that drives cost savings across multiple cost centers.