CAREM
About
The CAREM (Central Argentina de Elementos Modulares) reactor is a 32 MWe PWR. Its modular design positions it to produce electricity in a variety of deployment scenarios, in addition to cogeneration services such as desalination or district heating.
| Developer | Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA) |
|---|---|
| Country of Origin | Argentina |
| Size | Micro |
| Type | Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) |
Jump To:
Analysis
3
Deployment Timescale
Score Justification
The CAREM is in the pre-application phase of regulatory engagement and the developer is progressing toward the construction of a prototype unit. The design is based on a well-understood PWR architecture, which benefits from extensive operating experience globally and a robust supply chain. The CAREM’s modular construction approach is intended to support more predictable construction sequencing.
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) - 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) - 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)
3
Overnight Cost
Score Justification
The CAREM’s relatively small unit size and compact nuclear island contribute to a moderate overnight cost profile. The reactor requires a nuclear-grade containment structure, which can increase construction costs.
By indicator
- 3/4 Component Cost
What is the expected cost of the reactor’s major components? (40% of total score) - 3/6 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 CAREM benefit from the use of standard-assay LEU UO₂ fuel and established LWR operating practices, which support predictable fuel procurement and waste management costs. The reactor’s small footprint also contributes to lower expected decommissioning and staffing 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) - 3/5 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) - 4/5 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 CAREM reactor incorporates modular construction features that are intended to support repeatability, the absence of an operating prototype limits near-term confidence in construction schedules and cost estimates. While there is not a completed prototype for CAREM, a demonstrated reactor CAREM25 is under construction.
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 CAREM uses standard–assay LEU fuel. It has a thermal LWR configuration that is not optimized to produce material that is directly weapons usable. Publicly available design documentation does not explicitly reference security-by-design principles.
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 CAREM does not have an approved safety case from a national regulator. The reactor uses conventional LEU UO₂ fuel, which is well understood but not considered inherently accident tolerant. While it incorporates minimum PWR requirements, it does not offer additional containment levels. It benefits from an extended passive heat removal capability, with systems designed to remove decay heat without operator intervention for up to 36 hours.
By indicator
- 0/2 Safety Case
How mature and publicly established is the reactor’s safety case with the regulator? (40% of total score) - 2/2 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 CAREM uses standard–assay LEU UO₂ fuel, which has an established licensing and disposal precedent. Waste streams are predictable and consistent with conventional LWR practice. At longer storage timescales, including the 50-year milestone, decay heat levels are comparable with other LWRs and lower than many advanced fuel designs.
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 CAREM is based on conventional LWR technology, it can draw on an existing global supply chain for fuel, components, and services. Its reliance on mature LWR manufacturing and qualification pathways supports near-term supply chain readiness.
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)