BANR
About
The BANR is an HTGR microreactor that is estimated to operate at about 15 MWe. It is well suited for flexible deployment for offtakers such as data centers, municipal grids, and campuses. With an outlet temperature of 800 degrees Celsius, the BANR could be used for high process heat applications, such as mining and oil and gas industries. It is also well suited for desalination, district heating, and hydrogen production.
| Developer | BWXT |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | United States |
| Size | Micro |
| Type | High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
2
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
The BANR is in the prelicensing stage and has not yet completed fuel qualification for its TRISO fuel. Another HTGR using TRISO fuel is operating outside the United States and shares certain design features, providing limited international precedent. Once licensed, BWXT intends BANR to be a fully factory-fabricated reactor, delivered as an intact module.
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) - 3/6 Technology Precedent
Has the reactor design, or a sufficiently similar design, been certified anywhere in the world? (10% of total score) - 3/3 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) - 3/4 Specialization
To what extent do construction activities and components require lengthy qualification processes? (15% of total score) - 2/5 Supply Chain
How mature and available are suppliers for key reactor components and fuel services? (30% of total score)
5
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
The component costs of the BANR reactor are lower than many reactors in this tool because of its very small unit size and simplified layout. Construction costs are moderated by a minimal site footprint and limited nuclear island, although it retains a high share of specialized components.
By indicator
- 4/4 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
The BANR’s Operational Cost is driven by expensive TRISO HALEU fuel, but the reactor has low staffing and maintenance costs because of its small size and high degree of modularity. It has a smaller footprint than traditional GW-scale reactors, which lessens overall operational costs.
By indicator
- 1/3 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) - 4/4 Maintenance Cost
What is the expected annual maintenance cost for the reactor and balance of plant systems, including consumables? (25% of total score) - 5/5 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
As a first-of-a-kind design, near-term cost estimates for the BANR reactor are subject to uncertainty. However, the reactor’s modular construction approach is likely to bring down costs over time through repeatability.
By indicator
- 0/5 Prototype
To what extent has the reactor design been built, demonstrated, or commercially deployed in practice? (75% of total score) - 3/3 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
As an HTGR, the BANR is not optimized to produce weapons-usable nuclear material because it is on a thermal spectrum and has a high burnup rate. It does not incorporate an explicit security-by-design framework in its publicly available design materials.
By indicator
- 2/3 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)
3
Safety
Score Justification
The BANR’s TRISO fuel has not been manufactured at scale, and there are challenges that still need to be overcome related to quality control for this type of bulk fuel. Once available, TRISO fuel is expected to maintain integrity under high-temperature conditions. The reactor employs helium coolant, which is chemically inert and avoids energetic coolant–fuel interactions. The BANR relies on negative reactivity feedback as a primary safety feature as well as control rods.
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) - 1/1 Fuel With Safety Characteristics
Does the reactor use fuel with accident tolerance or inherent safety characteristics? (10% of total score) - 2/4 Pressure & Containment
How well does the reactor’s containment strategy protect from the release of radioactive material? (10% of total score) - 3/3 Passive Heat Removal
How long can the reactor remove core heat without operator intervention? (10% of total score) - 4/4 Coolant Reactivity
How chemically reactive is the reactor coolant? (10% of total score)
3
Spent Fuel & Radioactive Waste Management
Score Justification
The BANR produces a relatively large spent fuel volume per unit of energy because of the multilayered structure of TRISO fuel; however, it is not expected to produce much spent fuel in absolute value because of its micro size. At 50 years, spent TRISO fuel exhibits lower decay heat on a volumetric basis because it has much less heavy metal density. This low decay heat is relevant because a geologic repository is largely driven by heat-load, rather than volumetric constraints.
By indicator
- 0/1 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) - 3/3 On-Site Storage
How much on-site area is required for interim spent fuel storage? (10% of total score) - 1/3 Spent Fuel Volume
What volume of spent fuel is produced per unit of electricity generated? (15% of total score) - 2/2 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)
2
Supply Chain
Score Justification
The supply chain for nuclear‑grade helium and helium‑compatible components is still quite specialized. Fuel supply requires HALEU enrichment and TRISO fabrication, both of which are available on a limited commercial scale.
By indicator
- 1/2 Key Component Availability
To what extent are commercial or pilot-scale suppliers available for the reactor’s major components? (60% of total score) - 2/4 Fuel Availability
Are suppliers available for both fuel fabrication and enrichment required by the reactor design? (40% of total score)