APR1400
About
The APR1400 is a 1400 MWe PWR designed for large-scale electricity production, but it can be adapted for cogeneration. For cogeneration, the APR1400 is well suited for desalination and district heating.
| Developer | Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | Republic of Korea |
| Size | Large |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
4
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
Multiple APR1400 units are currently operating in the Republic of Korea and the United Arab Emirates, providing substantial construction and operational precedent. The design relies on a conventional, site-built approach with a high proportion of nuclear-qualified components and limited modularization, which contributes to longer construction timelines.
By indicator
- 4/4 Regulatory Engagement
To what extent has the reactor developer engaged with a recognized nuclear regulatory authority in the licensing process? (30% of total score) - 6/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (15% of total score) - 2/4 Specialization
To what extent do construction activities and components require lengthy qualification processes? (15% of total score) - 5/5 Supply Chain
How mature and available are suppliers for key reactor components and fuel services? (30% of total score)
1
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
As a GW-scale reactor, the APR1400 has a large footprint that drives up construction costs, as does the reactor’s extensive containment and civil works. However, it has fewer exotic components that require long-lead qualification processes than more novel reactor designs.
By indicator
- 1/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 2/6 Construction Cost
To what extent does the design reduce construction cost and risk through modular fabrication and limited nuclear-grade specialization? (60% of total score)
2
Operational Cost
Score Justification
The APR1400’s Operational Cost is driven by high maintenance, staffing, and decommissioning costs — largely derived from its sizable footprint. The reactor’s use of traditional LEU UO₂ fuel, however, leads to relatively inexpensive fuel costs and moderate waste management costs.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel Cost
What is the estimated cost of nuclear fuel per unit of electricity generated, including enrichment, fabrication, and back-end costs? (15% of total score) - 1/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 1/5 Staffing Level
How many full-time personnel are required to safely operate and maintain the reactor unit? (40% of total score) - 3/5 Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management Cost
What are the expected operational costs associated with managing spent fuel, including interim storage, transport, disposal, or recycling? (10% of total score) - 1/5 Decommissioning Cost
What are the total lifetime contributions required for decommissioning, regardless of funding mechanism? (10% of total score)
4
Cost Predictability
Score Justification
Cost estimates for the APR1400 are relatively predictable because of its history of operation. However, the high percentage of on-site construction can add to cost overruns, depending on the deployment location.
By indicator
- 5/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 1/3 Modularity
What share of total reactor systems can be manufactured off-site in controlled factory environments rather than constructed on-site? (25% of total score)
5
Security
Score Justification
The APR1400 met design basis threat requirements as part of its certification process in the United States. The reactor uses standard-assay LEU fuel, and its thermal spectrum is not optimized to produce weapons-usable nuclear material.
By indicator
- 3/3 Fuel
What is the enrichment level and composition of the reactor fuel? (40% of total score) - 4/4 Nuclear Material Production
What is the potential for the reactor to produce weapons-usable nuclear material? (40% of total score) - 1/1 Security by Design
Has the reactor developer built in security by design? (20% of total score)
3
Safety
Score Justification
The APR1400 has an approved safety case but does not employ accident-tolerant fuel. Active residual heat removal systems provide decay heat removal, rather than extended passive cooling. The design incorporates a conventional single containment structure consistent with PWR requirements, without a redundant containment layer.
By indicator
- 2/2 Safety Case
How mature and publicly established is the reactor’s safety case with the regulator? (40% of total score) - 1/2 Shutdown Mechanism
How diverse, independent, and passive are the reactor’s shutdown systems? (20% of total score) - 0/1 Fuel With Safety Characteristics
Does the reactor use fuel with accident tolerance or inherent safety characteristics? (10% of total score) - 1/4 Pressure & Containment
How well does the reactor’s containment strategy protect from the release of radioactive material? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Passive Heat Removal
How long can the reactor remove core heat without operator intervention? (10% of total score) - 3/4 Coolant Reactivity
How chemically reactive is the reactor coolant? (10% of total score)
3
Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management
Score Justification
The APR1400 uses standard–assay LEU UO₂ fuel, which has been licensed and qualified for disposal in multiple countries. This familiar spent fuel form can usually be transferred to interim storage within five years. The reactor does not introduce novel waste streams that require separate treatment and handling beyond past practice.
By indicator
- 1/1 Spent Fuel Licensing Precedent
Has the spent fuel form been previously licensed for disposal? (20% of total score) - 3/4 Waste Streams
How many distinct waste streams require separate conditioning or handling pathways? (20% of total score) - 1/3 On-Site Storage
How much on-site area is required for interim spent fuel storage? (10% of total score) - 2/3 Spent Fuel Volume
What volume of spent fuel is produced per unit of electricity generated? (15% of total score) - 1/2 Decay Heat
What is the decay heat output of spent fuel at the 50-year interim storage milestone? (20% of total score) - 2/2 Time to Interim Storage
What is the average time until spent fuel can be transferred to interim storage? (15% of total score)
5
Supply Chain
Score Justification
The design benefits from a highly developed manufacturing base for major components. Fuel enrichment and fabrication are supported by established commercial facilities, providing a robust and scalable supply chain.
By indicator
- 2/2 Key Component Availability
To what extent are commercial or pilot-scale suppliers available for the reactor’s major components? (60% of total score) - 4/4 Fuel Availability
Are suppliers available for both fuel fabrication and enrichment required by the reactor design? (40% of total score)