ACP100S
About
The ACP100S is an SMR with PWR technology that operates at 125 MWe and is designed for flexible electricity and cogeneration. Given its operating temperature around 300 degrees Celsius, the ACP100S is well suited for desalination and district heating. The ACP100S is intended to have a maritime application as a floating nuclear power plant.
| Developer | China National Nuclear Company (CNNC) |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | China |
| Size | Small |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
3
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
While the design of CNNC’s land-based ACP100 has been certified in China, their maritime ACP100S variant has not been certified yet. Nevertheless, certification of the underlying design, operational precedent from similar floating reactors, and a well-established LWR supply chain support realistic deployment timelines. The ACP100S’s maritime application demands modular construction and integration into a floating platform that minimizes some of the on-site construction typically required for land-based LWRs.
By indicator
- 1/4 Regulatory Engagement
To what extent has the reactor developer engaged with a recognized nuclear regulatory authority in the licensing process? (30% of total score) - 4/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 2/3 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) - 4/4 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)
4
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
The ACP100S’s small unit size, modular construction approach, and limited reliance on exotic components with lengthy qualification processes contribute to a relatively low overnight cost profile.
By indicator
- 3/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 5/6 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)
4
Operational Cost
Score Justification
Operational costs for the ACP100S benefit from the use of standard-assay LEU UO₂ fuel and established LWR waste management practices, supporting predictable fuel and disposal costs. Maintenance requirements are moderate, reflecting simplified plant systems relative to large LWRs, while retaining conventional water-cooled reactor equipment. The reactor’s compact footprint and limited site remediation is expected to contribute to relatively low decommissioning 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) - 3/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 4/5 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) - 5/5 Decommissioning Cost
What are the total lifetime contributions required for decommissioning, regardless of funding mechanism? (10% of total score)
2
Cost Predictability
Score Justification
Although the ACP100S benefits from design certification of the ACP100 and modular construction features, the absence of an operating prototype limits near-term confidence in cost estimates. Construction scope associated with containment structures may also introduce schedule and cost variability.
By indicator
- 0/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 2/3 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)
4
Security
Score Justification
The ACP100S’s design uses standard–assay LEU fuel. Its thermal spectrum is not optimized to produce weapons-usable material. The ACP100S does not incorporate an explicit security-by-design framework in its publicly available design materials.
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) - 0/1 Security by Design
Has the reactor developer built in security by design? (20% of total score)
2
Safety
Score Justification
The safety case for the ACP100S has not been approved, and the technology does not use accident-tolerant fuel. Like many reactors, it combines negative reactivity feedback with an independent active shutdown system in the form of control rods, which are actively actuated by a sensor and passively deployed by gravity.
By indicator
- 0/2 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) - 2/3 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 ACP100S 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. Because the ACP100S is designed for ship-based deployment, on-site spent fuel storage is constrained by the vessel footprint and integrated into the ship’s layout.
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) - 2/3 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
Because the ACP100S is based on established LWR technology, it can draw on a mature supply chain for components, fuel, and fabrication.
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)