News Article | May 10, 2017
The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has a plan to conduct nuclear energy R&D using NuScale’s light water reactor technology. In doing so it will create a test bed on an international scale for advanced reactor designs. According to a report in the Idaho Falls Post Register for May4, 2017, 18 reactor design groups have expressed interest in using a proposed nuclear reactor test facility at the INL and two of them have indicated they are ready to move their test operations to the site as soon as one of the 12 planned NuScale 50 MW modules is available. A spokesman for NuScale, which plans to build up to 12 50 MW small modular reactor units at the Idaho site, told the newspaper the first unit for its customer UAMPS, is slated to begin operation in 2026. Last December NuScale submitted their SMR design to the NRC for design certification, which is expected to take three-to-four years to complete. The umbrella concept for the test platform is to use one or possibly two of the 12 units as part of the INL’s joint proposal with NuScale and UAMPS for a “Joint Use Modular Plant.” The idea is that one or two of the 50 MW units, built after the first unit is in revenue service, would serve as a platform to test different applications of the SMR’s capabilities. Some of the potential applications that have been discussed being tested including using grids of SMRs to support resilient power for communities so that if one unit is offline, the others keep churning out electricity. With large 1000 MW units, if they go offline, a lot of expensive replacement power has to be obtaining right away. If it isn’t available because of demand, brownouts or blackouts can be the result. Some SMRs might have as their primary purpose providing steam for district heating replacing coal fired units or for desalinization of sea water. The most intriguing idea is to apply the test SMRs to support development of advanced reactor designs. To that end Terrestrial Energy, a Canadian firm, is reported to be in discussions with the INL to do test work there to develop its molten salt reactor design. The firm wants to take advantage of the INL’s site with its infrastructure and the fact that environmental reviews for this kind of project were completed for the NuScale project. Having access to the lab’s scientists and engineers is also a big plus. This kind of work is usually done on a cost-reimbursable basis which means that Terrestrial Energy would have to pay for any costs associated with using the site and having access to a future SMR. To this end Terrestrial Energy has applied for a Department of Energy loan-guarantee. However, to date the company is still working off of Series A financing packages and has yet to book an investor or a consortium in the $100M or greater range which would be needed to proceed with a prototype. Nevertheless, the firm has said its time to market for its novel design would be sometime in the 2020s. It announced ambitious plans last January it plans to submit its design to the NRC by 2019. In July 2016 Transatomic, a developer of an advanced nuclear reactor design, told this blog it also has approached the INL for possible use of test facilities there and to explore the potential to build its first prototype at the site. Transatomic has received a grant from the GAIN program at the INL for work on the specialized fuel that would be needed for its reactor design. The problem facing both Terrestrial Energy and Transatomic is that new reactor technologies much prove to utilities that they can be operated at a profit within the constraints of existing market realities or they will not be adopted. This requires extensive testing of designs and development of cost estimates that will attract equity investors and customers. The Idaho test facility, if built, may be able to speed up the process. It will need help from the Department of Energy as will the developers in public / private partnerships to succeed. A consortium of SMR developers has spelling out the elements of a commercial deployment program needed to stimulate new SMR generation sufficient for self-sustaining deployment. The program should be available through a combination of the following investment mechanisms: (full details here) SMR Trade Group Urges DOE to Use Their Reactors for Grid Stability The indisputable fact is that the nation’s electrical grid cannot run 100% on renewable energy. Both solar and wind are intermittent, and in order to keep the electrical grid stable, there has to be baseload demand. So far this stability has been provided by large 1000 MW nuclear reactors, as well as gas and coal fired conventional power plants. An industry consortium of small modular reactor (SMR) developers and customers has written to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’to support his request for a departmental study on the nation’s energy security and grid reliability. Their main pitch is that if you want grid stabilty, and CO2 emission free baseload power, SMRs are the way to go. Plus they are a lot cheaper than the the full size reactors. For instance, at $4,000/KW, a 50 MW SMR would cost only $200M. In a multi-unit facility, like the one planned by NuScale for its customer UAMPS, the revenue from the first unit pays for the second and so on. This means the customer is not in a “bet the company” profile waiting for a 1000 MW unit costing $4 billion to come online. The challenge for SMR vendors is to get enough orders to shift production from a complex supply chain and one-at-a-time fabrication to a factory production line to achieve economies of scale. These facts are most likely unknown to the new energy secretary who’s background as a career politican hasn’t instilled much confidence in the industry, although it won’t say that in public. So starting with the obvious, the in May 2 letter the SMR Start consortium highlighted the role that nuclear energy plays in securing the nation’s baseload power diversity and grid stability. “Nuclear energy is reliable baseload power that generates nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity and is a major reason we benefit from affordable electricity prices today,” the letter said. Perry’s memo to his staff expressed concerns about the potential erosion of the diversity of critical baseload resources, and asked for a 60-day study into how federal policy interventions may be distorting wholesale electricity markets. He also asked whether some attributes of baseload power sources that strengthen grid reliability are being adequately valued and compensated in wholesale electricity markets, and the extent to which “market-distorting” federal subsidies may “boost one form of energy at the expense of others.” This last item is clearly aimed at the need to value the zero carbon emissions profile of the nation’s nuclear fleet. A number of otherwise fully operational nucler reactors have closed due to market conditions that undercut their ability to operate at a profit. They include reactors in Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Vermont, among others. SMR Start’s letter points out that with regard to nuclear energy, the markets are not fully valuing its unique combination of benefits, including “grid reliability, on-site fuel supply, technology diversity, carbon-free generation and long-term price stability.” The letter recommends that the U.S. Department of Energy implement policy solutions to “level the playing field” for the deployment of new reactors, as well as to preserve existing nuclear facilities. This means rate structures have to be set up that will provide confidence for investors to put up the money to developa and deploy new SMRs for commercial use. SMRs, which are expected to begin operating in the mid-2020s, will feature “the ability to better match new generation capacity with electric demand growth, enhance grid reliability through load following in areas with high penetration of intermittent renewables, and the ability to be deployed in diverse applications.” “Federal support for SMRs will continue to be needed in 2018 and over the next several years in order to bring this technology to market in time to meet future energy demands.” SMR Start’s policy paper further recommends that DOE and the U.S. Department of Defense establish programs to develop SMR-powered microgrids that can power remote locations independent of the main grid, making them “less vulnerable” to natural phenomena and intentional acts. TVA Not Bullish on SMRs but Keeps Options Open The Knoxville News reports on May 2 that while TVA has filed an application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for a small modular reactor at its Clinch River site, it does not feel the technology nor the utility are ready to move ahead with one. The quasi-governmental utility also has a problem with debt ceiling that makes it wary of taking on new capital intensive projects with unknown costs. According to the Knoxville News report, a TVA executive told the newspaper the utility is taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SMRs. He said that the utility has no commitment to build an SMR, but will seriously consider its options once it sees that there is a cost effective design available. For that to happen, he said, the industry would have to have shifted from one-at-a-time unit by unit construction to the production of whole reactor systems in factories. The design would have “to be self-contained and not need much of the infrastructure of a site built reactor.” TVA’s doesn’t specify what kind of SMR technology nor a preferred reactor vendor. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell told the newspaper the agency only requires that the application shows that the site is capable of supporting a “generic set of nuclear power plant characteristics.” (China Daily) The first pilot project to use China National Nuclear Corporation’s 125 MWe ACP100 small modular nuclear reactor has completed its preliminary design stage and is qualified for construction in Hainan province. The Linglong One is the first reactor of its kind in the world to have passed the safety review by the IAEA. ( October 2016 IAEA briefing slides PDF file on capabilities and expected uses) The company said that the ACP100, China’s first small modular reactor (SMR) developed by CNNC for practical use is expected to be built at the end of this year in the Changjiang Li autonomous county of Hainan. Qian Tianlin, general manager of China Nuclear New Energy Investment, said that small-scale nuclear reactor technology has reached a stage at which it can be used on a pilot basis. It can be used to generate heat for a residential district replacing coal-fired boilers and for grid stability in a mesh network. Qian said he expects mass production of the small modular reactors after the pilot project in Hainan is up and running, and for the technology to be exported globally.
News Article | May 22, 2017
— The Global Diaphragm Valve market size will be XX million (USD) in 2022, from the XX million (USD) in 2016, with a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) XX% from 2016 to 2022. This report studies Diaphragm Valve in Global market, especially in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, Middle East and Africa, focuses on the top 5 Diaphragm Valve Players in each region, with sales, price, revenue and market share for top 5 manufacturer, covering GEMU Saunders NDV Alfa Laval Georg Fischer Parker Hannifin Aquasyn KITZ SCT ENG Valves (ITT) Hylok Marcworks Top Line Process Shanghai Lianggong BVMG Rodaff Fluid Tech Shanghai REMY City Valve Factory Hong ke Enine Corporation Liang Jing CNNC Sufa Shanghai Lizao Avail 10% Discount on Single User License. Valid for the period from 15th May 2017 to 15th June 2017 Get a PDF Sample of Market Report at: http://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/request-sample/292812 Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales, revenue, market share of top 5 players in these regions, from 2012 to 2017 (forecast), like North America (United States, Canada and Mexico) Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India and Korea) Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy and Russia etc. South America (Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina) Middle East and Africa (Egypt, South Africa, Saudi Arabia) Split by Product Types, with sales, revenue, price, market share of each type, can be divided into Stainless Steel Cast iron Plastic Others Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Diaphragm Valve in each application, can be divided into Industrial Application Food and beverage Application Pharmaceutical Application Biotech Application Avail 15% Discount on Corporate Users License Valid for the period from 15th May 2017 to 15th June 2017 Buy the Report@ http://www.orbisresearch.com/contact/purchase/292812 Check Out some Points from Table of Contents: 1 Diaphragm Valve Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Diaphragm Valve 1.2 Diaphragm Valve Segment by Types 1.2.1 Global Sales Market Share of Diaphragm Valve by Types in 2016 1.2.2 Stainless Steel 1.2.3 Cast iron 1.2.4 Plastic 1.2.5 Others 1.3 Diaphragm Valve Segment by Applications 1.3.1 Diaphragm Valve Consumption Market Share by Applications in 2016 1.3.2 Industrial Application 1.3.3 Food and beverage Application 1.3.4 Pharmaceutical Application 1.3.5 Biotech Application 1.4 Diaphragm Valve Market by Regions 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 184.108.40.206 North America Diaphragm Valve Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.4.2 Asia-Pacific Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 220.127.116.11 Asia-Pacific Diaphragm Valve Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 18.104.22.168 Europe Diaphragm Valve Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.4.4 South America Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 22.214.171.124 South America Diaphragm Valve Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.4.5 Middle East and Africa Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 126.96.36.199 Middle East and Africa Diaphragm Valve Revenue (Million USD) and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of Diaphragm Valve (2012-2022) 2 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Players 2.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share in 2016 and 2017 by Players 2.1.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.1.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales Market Share (%) by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Revenue and Market Share by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.2.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Revenue by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.2.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Revenue Market Share (%) by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.3 Global Diaphragm Valve Average Price by Players in 2016 and 2017 2.4 Global Diaphragm Valve Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area, Product Types by Players 2.4.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Manufacturing Base Distribution and Sales Area by Players 2.4.2 Players Diaphragm Valve Product Types 2.5 Diaphragm Valve Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 Diaphragm Valve Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 Diaphragm Valve Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Players 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion 3 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue (Value) by Regions, Type and Application (2012-2017) 3.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue and Market Share by Regions (2012-2017) 3.1.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Regions (2012-2017) 3.1.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Revenue and Market Share by Regions (2012-2017) 3.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue, Market Share and Price by Type (2012-2017) 3.2.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 3.2.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 3.2.3 Global Diaphragm Valve Price by Type (2012-2017) 3.3 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 3.3.1 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales by Application (2012-2017) 3.3.2 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 3.4 Global Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 4 North America Top 5 Players Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue and Price 4.1 North America Top 5 Players Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue and Market Share in 2016 and 2017 4.1.1 North America Top 5 Players Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share in 2016 and 2017 4.1.2 North America Top 5 Players Diaphragm Valve Revenue and Market Share in 2016 and 2017 4.2 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales, Revenue, Market Share and Price by Type (2012-2017) 4.2.1 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 188.8.131.52 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales by Type (2012-2017) 184.108.40.206 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 4.2.2 North America Diaphragm Valve Revenue and Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 220.127.116.11 North America Diaphragm Valve Revenue by Type (2012-2017) 18.104.22.168 North America Diaphragm Valve Revenue Market Share by Type (2012-2017) 4.2.3 North America Diaphragm Valve Price by Type (2012-2017) 4.3 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 4.3.1 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales by Application (2012-2017) 4.3.2 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Application (2012-2017) 4.4 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales and Market Share by Country (US, Canada and Mexico) (2012-2017) 4.4.1 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales by Country (2012-2017) 4.4.2 North America Diaphragm Valve Sales Market Share by Country (2012-2017) 4.5 North America Diaphragm Valve Import & Export (2012-2017) About Us: Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a single point aid for all your market research requirements. We have vast database of reports from the leading publishers and authors across the globe. We specialize in delivering customised reports as per the requirements of our clients. We have complete information about our publishers and hence are sure about the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialisation. This helps our clients to map their needs and we produce the perfect required market research study for our clients. For more information, please visit http://www.orbisresearch.com/reports/index/2017-top-5-diaphragm-valve-manufacturers-in-north-america-europe-asia-pacific-south-america-middle-east-and-africa
News Article | May 5, 2017
— In this report, the global Uranium Mining market is valued at USD XX million in 2016 and is expected to reach USD XX million by the end of 2022, growing at a CAGR of XX% between 2016 and 2022. Geographically, this report split global into several key Regions, with sales (K MT), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of Uranium Mining for these regions, from 2012 to 2022 (forecast), covering United States China Europe Japan Southeast Asia India Global Uranium Mining market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Uranium Mining sales volume, Price (USD/MT), revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including Kazatomprom Cameco ARMZ Areva BHP Billiton CNNC Paladin Navoi Rio Tinto Group On the basis of product, this report displays the sales volume (K MT), revenue (Million USD), product price (USD/MT), market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into Granite-Type Uranium Deposits Volcanic-Type Uranium Deposits Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits Carbonate-Siliceous-Pelitic Rock Type Uranium Deposits On the basis on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate of Uranium Mining for each application, including Military Electricity Medical Industrial Others Global Uranium Mining Sales Market Report 2017 1 Uranium Mining Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Uranium Mining 1.2 Classification of Uranium Mining by Product Category 1.2.1 Global Uranium Mining Market Size (Sales) Comparison by Type (2012-2022) 1.2.2 Global Uranium Mining Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) in 2016 1.2.3 Granite-Type Uranium Deposits 1.2.4 Volcanic-Type Uranium Deposits 1.2.5 Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposits 1.2.6 Carbonate-Siliceous-Pelitic Rock Type Uranium Deposits 1.3 Global Uranium Mining Market by Application/End Users 1.3.1 Global Uranium Mining Sales (Volume) and Market Share Comparison by Application (2012-2022) 1.3.2 Military 1.3.3 Electricity 1.3.4 Medical 1.3.5 Industrial 1.3.6 Others 1.4 Global Uranium Mining Market by Region 1.4.1 Global Uranium Mining Market Size (Value) Comparison by Region (2012-2022) 1.4.2 United States Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.3 China Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.4 Europe Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.5 Japan Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.6 Southeast Asia Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.4.7 India Uranium Mining Status and Prospect (2012-2022) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Uranium Mining (2012-2022) 1.5.1 Global Uranium Mining Sales and Growth Rate (2012-2022) 1.5.2 Global Uranium Mining Revenue and Growth Rate (2012-2022) … 9 Global Uranium Mining Players/Suppliers Profiles and Sales Data 9.1 Kazatomprom 9.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.1.2 Uranium Mining Product Category, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Product A 126.96.36.199 Product B 9.1.3 Kazatomprom Uranium Mining Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.2 Cameco 9.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.2.2 Uranium Mining Product Category, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Product A 184.108.40.206 Product B 9.2.3 Cameco Uranium Mining Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.3 ARMZ 9.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.3.2 Uranium Mining Product Category, Application and Specification 220.127.116.11 Product A 18.104.22.168 Product B 9.3.3 ARMZ Uranium Mining Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.4 Areva 9.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.4.2 Uranium Mining Product Category, Application and Specification 22.214.171.124 Product A 126.96.36.199 Product B 9.4.3 Areva Uranium Mining Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.5 BHP Billiton 9.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 9.5.2 Uranium Mining Product Category, Application and Specification 188.8.131.52 Product A 184.108.40.206 Product B 9.5.3 BHP Billiton Uranium Mining Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2012-2017) 9.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 9.6 CNNC …Continued For more information, please visit http://www.wiseguyreports.com
News Article | May 5, 2017
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA--(Marketwired - May 05, 2017) - Paladin Energy Limited (Paladin or the Company) ( : PDN) (TSX: PDN) refers to its previous announcements regarding its Restructure Proposal, and a potential option in favour of CNNC Overseas Uranium Holding Ltd (CNNC) which, if validly exercised, could entitle CNNC to acquire Paladin's interest in the Langer Heinrich Mine (LHM). On 23 March 2017, Paladin announced it had resolved to commence arbitration proceedings against CNNC asserting that no 'event of default' had occurred under the LHM Shareholders' Agreement. At the same time, CNNC sought to progress the potential option via discussions with the Company and also directly with its bondholders and their advisers. During these discussions various concessions were discussed that could benefit the Company. Furthermore, during this time, Paladin progressed ideas for an alternative solvent restructuring proposal with its creditors. Paladin has now agreed that without any admission of the validity of CNNC's claims and without prejudice to its rights under the LHM Shareholders' Agreement, it will allow an independent valuation process to move forward. The valuation is the first step in a process that may lead to CNNC acquiring Paladin's 75% interest in LHM. The Company made the decision to allow the valuation process to move forward having consideration for: the expected valuation range for its interest in LHM; stakeholders' attitude to a protracted and costly arbitration; and the possibility that subject to further engagement and support of key stakeholders, it may be able to propose an alternative solvent restructuring. The valuation is to be performed by an independent international investment bank with uranium experience and is expected to take 5-6 weeks. Under the LHM Shareholders' Agreement, once the valuation is complete CNNC has 30 days to exercise the option. An acquisition of Paladin's interest in LHM pursuant to the option would include the right to buy one or both of: the Company's shareholder loan of approximately US$251m at its full face value; and its equity in LHM. A 5% discount to fair market value would apply to the equity portion. Paladin retains the support of its stakeholders and is seeking to finalise an alternative restructuring proposal that can be put forward as a valid solvent restructuring to be implemented in the event CNNC acquires its stake in LHM. Paladin will continue to provide its stakeholders with material updates as soon as it is in a position to do so. It is intended that Paladin's shares will remain in suspension until Paladin has resolved how it will progress any alternative restructure, including in circumstances where Paladin no longer owns an interest in LHM. This is expected to be announced before the results of the valuation.
News Article | May 3, 2017
This is a series around POWER, a Motherboard 360/VR documentary about nuclear energy. Follow along here. As Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stood alongside Justin Trudeau at Parliament's centre block in September, a quiet confidence was growing in Canada's nuclear industry. The Prime Minister and the Chinese leader were overseeing a signing ceremony between the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and Canadian engineering giant, SNC-Lavalin, which owns CANDU technology. The agreement will see two next-generation CANDU nuclear reactors installed about 100 kilometres southwest of Shanghai, and could transform nuclear power. Canada's nuclear industry is on the upswing, partly because of a global push to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The deal with CNNC is part of that. Teams here are developing advanced nuclear technologies that will ideally help wean us off fossil fuels, which is one reason many environmentalists are starting to embrace nuclear. Watch more from Motherboard: Going Nuclear If all goes according to plan, the CANDU reactors slated for the Qinshan nuclear site will be powered by what the industry calls advanced fuels: reprocessed uranium recycled from conventional reactors, and later, the radioactive element thorium, said Justin Hannah, Director of Marketing, Strategy and External Relations for SNC's CANDU division. Only a handful of sites in Europe and Japan are able to reprocess uranium today, and there is no standard on how to reuse it as a fuel, so it's not widely used. Even so, it has the potential to reduce stockpiles of radioactive waste and make countries that use it less dependent on uranium imports. CANDUs could start using thorium, with China's backing, putting the world closer to what proponents call the thorium dream Thorium has its own advantages when compared to uranium: it's about three times more abundant and can provide just as much power, plus it's far less useful for making nuclear weapons, mainly because its fuel cycle doesn't produce plutonium. But thorium is notoriously difficult to mine. Using it as a fuel is also complex, so reactor designs and supply chains aren't readily available. The fact that CANDUs could start using thorium, with China's backing, may put the world closer to what proponents call the thorium dream of safer, cleaner and more abundant nuclear power. China currently has 36 nuclear reactors in operation, another 21 under construction, and wants to double its nuclear power generation by 2021. Most of the existing reactors are conventional pressurized water reactors that run on enriched uranium, but the country is moving aggressively towards advanced reactor designs that can make use of the spent uranium from their current reactors, and the growing stockpiles of thorium that are a byproduct of mining for rare earth elements, a market that China dominates. China has a growing appetite for carbon-free energy, and the government has declared war on pollution from coal-fired power plants, so nuclear makes sense. But Canada's technology could also be of strategic value. "They have the thorium, they have the spent uranium," said Hannah. This country stands to benefit from the agreement with China, too. If we get this joint venture right, "Canada's nuclear industry could be seen as world leaders," said Jerry Hopwood, President of the University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering, a partnership between 12 Canadian universities, government, and Canada's nuclear industry. The new Chinese-Canadian commercial entity is expected to be registered in China by mid-2017, with pre-construction work beginning in 2019 and 2026 targeted for the first AFCR to be operational, said Hannah. Thorium could be in use in the 2030s. As for whether Canada could one day switch to thorium, we've got large, high-quality uranium reserves, so any move to bring a thorium-powered AFCR here will depend on both politics and economics. "There's no strong economic driver for it," argued John Luxat, a nuclear safety expert at McMaster University. "The utilities don't want to switch over, but it's nice to know that we could." After what Hopwood called a lull in Canada's industry in the early 2000s, he believes recent investments and the push for carbon-free power show there's a resurgence in nuclear. The industry got a boost in 2016 from Ontario's support for the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear plant, and the 2015 plan to extend the life of Bruce Power's nuclear reactors—each project projected to cost about $13 billion. Apart from that, SNC may be building another CANDU reactor in Argentina. Canadian nuclear startups are also chasing new technologies. Terrestrial Energy has plans to build a commercially-viable molten salt reactor (MSR) by the 2020s. Read More: The Plan to Build a Million-Year Nuclear Waste Dump on the Great Lakes Since the concept was first developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, it's been touted as a safer alternative. Terrestrial's small, modular design is targeted at remote communities and providing carbon-free power directly to heavy industrial installations. The nuclear fuel used in an MSR is liquid, so it can't melt down, and it's chemically bound to the molten salt coolant. That means a loss of coolant, like the one that happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011, isn't possible, said Canon Bryan, Terrestrial's co-founder. Watch more from Motherboard: The Thorium Dream The molten fuel is highly corrosive, so MSRs still need further development to be proven safe. But the company has garnered nearly $30 million in investment, among other undisclosed grants, and Terrestrial's application to the US government for a $1 billion loan guarantee through its US subsidiary is advancing well, said Bryan. While Terrestrial's MSR design could potentially use thorium fuel in the future, the goal of becoming commercially viable as soon as possible means that the company will be sticking with uranium for now, since it's well-understood by the industry. "The conversation is changing," said Jerry Hopwood. "The fact that Canada is serious about dealing with climate change [has] put nuclear in a good position." Subscribe to Science Solved It, Motherboard's new show about the greatest mysteries that were solved by science.
News Article | February 15, 2017
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA--(Marketwired - February 14, 2017) - Paladin Energy Ltd ("Paladin" or "the Company") ( : PDN) (TSX: PDN) announces the release of its condensed consolidated interim financial report for the half-year reporting period ended 31 December 2016. The condensed consolidated financial report is appended to this News Release. References below to 2016 and 2015 are to the equivalent six months ended 31 December 2016 and 2015 respectively. (References below to 2016 and 2015 are to the equivalent six months ended 31 December 2016 and 2015 respectively). The Company's 12 month moving average Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate5 (LTIFR) decreased to 1.9 as compared to 2.5 at the end of the last quarter. The 12 month moving average LTIFR for the previous year was 2.10. The Company achieved 910 Lost Time Injury (LTI) free days at the Kayelekera Mine (KM) for ~1.6 Million man hours. Two LTI's were reported during the six months: a process operator sustained an injury to the right ankle descending a fixed ladder and a maintenance tradesman injured a shoulder while using a drill. LHM produced 2.500Mlb U O for the six months ended 31 December 2016, up 7% from the previous year (2015: 2.342Mlb U O ). The unit C1 cost of production for the six months decreased by 39% from US$26.50/lb in 2015 to US$16.25/lb in 2016 primarily due to strong operating performance and the impact of the US$168.9M write-down of LHM's ore stockpiles that occurred at 30 June 2016. Activities at site focused on water treatment, discharge and monitoring. Sales revenue for 2016 decreased by 46% from US$101.3M in 2015 to US$55.2M in 2016, as a result of a 36% decrease in realised sales price and a 15% decrease in sales volume. The average realised uranium sales price for 2016 was US$25.96/lb U O (2015: US$40.54/lb U O ), compared to the TradeTech weekly spot price average for the period of US$22.63/lb U O . Gross loss for the period decreased by 175% from a gross profit of US$23.7M in 2015 to a gross loss of US$17.7M in 2016 due to a 36% decrease in realised sales price, a 15% decrease in sales volume, and an impairment of inventory of US$22.3M (2015: US$Nil), which was partially offset by a 35% decrease in cost of sales. Impairments of inventory of US$22.3M were recognised in 2016 (2015: US$Nil) Impairments comprise of a US$16.2M impairment of LHM ore stockpiles, US$2.9M impairment of LHM product-in-circuit due to the write-off of the build-up of solubilised uranium present in the interstitial water in TSF3 and a US$3.2M impairment of finished goods due to low uranium prices. The impairment of LHM ore stockpiles resulted from a change in LHM's life of mine plan and lower forecast uranium prices. Net loss after tax attributable to members of the Parent for 2016 of US$46.0M (2015: Net loss US$24.2M). Underlying EBITDA has deteriorated by US$11.3M for the period from an underlying EBITDA of US$17.0M for 2015 to US$5.7M for 2016. The Group's principal source of liquidity as at 31 December 2016, was cash of US$26.7M (30 June 2016: US$59.2M). Any cash available to be invested is held with Australian banks with a minimum AA- Standard & Poor's credit rating over a range of maturities. Of this, US$20.9M is held in US dollars. Cash outflow from operating activities was US$40.9M in 2016 (2015: outflow US$2.9M), primarily due to payments to suppliers and employees of US$76.5M and net interest paid of US$14.0M, which were partially offset by receipts from customers of US$50.0M. Cash outflow from investing activities for 2016 was US$1.3M (2015: US$5.3M): Cash inflow from financing activities was US$9.6M in 2016 (2015: outflow US$38.0M), was attributable to the drawdown of US$20M under the LHM secured Revolving Credit Facility, which was partially offset by a US$10.4M distribution to CNNC by way of repayment of intercompany loans owing by LHM that have been assigned to CNNC. At 31 December 2016, the Group's cash and cash equivalents were US$26.7M, which was within the guidance range previously provided of US$20M to US$30M. The documents comprising the condensed consolidated interim financial report for the half-year reporting period ended 31 December 2016, including Management Discussion and Analysis, Financial Statements and Certifications will be filed with the Company's other documents on Sedar (sedar.com) and on the Company's website (paladinenergy.com.au). The TradeTech weekly spot price average for 2016 was US$22.63/lb, a fall of 38% compared to the weekly spot average for 2015 average of US$36.26. TradeTech's end-November spot price of US$17.75/lb was the lowest level observed since May 2004. Uranium spot prices increased in late-December 2016 and, following KazAtomProm's announcement of a 10% cut in planned 2017 uranium production, improved further in early January 2017. The spot price currently stands around US$26.50/lb. Increased term market activity has been seen since December 2016 and improved demand levels are expected to continue into 2017. Mixed signals continue to be seen in the US market. The election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency is anticipated to be positive for nuclear power and the approval of the Future Energy Jobs Bill in Illinois in December 2016 will allow Exelon's Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear power plants to continue operating. On the other hand, the past 2 months have seen early closure announcements for Entergy's Palisades and Indian Point facilities and speculation that First Energy Corp could try to sell or close the Davis-Besse plant. In the UK, January saw the award of further contracts for the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. French contractor Bouygues SA will work with UK builder Laing O'Rourke on a US$1.8Bn contract to construct the buildings that will house the two reactors. Meanwhile, EdF anticipates French nuclear availability to return to normal levels in early 2017 as 11 out of the 12 reactors offline for safety evaluation are expected to return to service. Kyushu's Sendai 1 was returned to service in December 2016 after completing its first periodic inspection since re-start in August 2015. Sendai 2 was taken out of service for periodic inspection in December and is expected to be back online in late-February 2017. Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority cleared Kyushu's Genkai 1 & 2 reactors for restart and also approved a life extension for Kansai's Mihama 3 in late-2016. The Genkai reactors are targeted to return to service during 2017. Paladin believes a uranium industry turnaround is imminent. However, given the current low pricing environment, its current strategies are focused on optimising actions to maximise cash flow whilst also prudently enacting capital management actions. Paladin's strategies are aimed at maximising shareholder value through the uranium price downturn whilst remaining positioned for a future normalisation of the uranium market and price. Key elements of the Company's strategy include: LHM's adjusted Life of Mine plan (LOM) was implemented in November 2016, which involves reducing mining material movement combined with processing plant feed coming from stockpiled low and medium grade ores. The revised mine plan effectively shifts higher-grade ore processing into later years when uranium prices are expected to be higher. The FY2017 average feed grade will be reduced into the range of 550ppm to 570ppm vs our previous internal Company budget of 700ppm. The impact of the change will reduce finished U O production by up to 1.0Mlb to 1.5Mlb per year for each of the next two years. However, the requirement for less movement of mined material on site during the period reduces cash operating costs by well in excess of any lost revenue. Using Paladin's internal assumptions the initiative will generate approximately US$40M of cumulative incremental operating cash flow for FY2017 and FY2018. Key relevant guidance items for the quarter to 31 March 2017 include: Due to the successful first half to 31 December 2016, Paladin has revised certain items in its guidance for the full-year to 30 June 2017, including: Other full-year guidance items to remain unchanged at this time. However, 'all in' cash expenditure guidance may be subsequently revised downwards depending on the progress of the Proposed Restructure and update to the Company's internal financial forecast subsequently. The news release includes non-GAAP performance measures: C1 cost of production, EBITDA, non-cash costs as well as other income and expenses. The Company believes that, in addition to the conventional measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, the Company and certain investors use this information to evaluate the Company's performance and ability to generate cash flow. The additional information provided herein should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with GAAP. The information in this announcement that relates to minerals exploration and mineral resources is based on information compiled by David Princep BSc, P.Geo FAusIMM (CP) who has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he is undertaking to qualify as Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code). and as a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101. Mr Princep is a full-time employee of Paladin Energy Ltd. Mr. Princep consents to the inclusion of the information in this announcement in the form and context in which it appears. Conference Call and Investor Update is scheduled for 07:30 Perth & Hong Kong, Wednesday 15 February 2017; 23:30 London, Tuesday 14 February 2017 and 18:30 Toronto, Tuesday 14 February 2017. Details are included in a separate news release dated 3 February 2017. The documents comprising the Conference Call and Investor Update will be filed with the Company's other documents on Sedar (sedar.com) and on the Company's website (paladinenergy.com.au). 1 LHM production volumes and unit C1 cost of production include an adjustment to in-circuit inventory relating to leached uranium within process circuit. 2 C1 cost of production = cost of production excluding product distribution costs, sales royalties and depreciation and amortisation before adjustment for impairment. C1 cost, which is non-IFRS information, is a widely used 'industry standard' term. 3 EBITDA = The Company's Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) represents profit before finance costs, taxation, depreciation and amortisation, impairments, foreign exchange gains/losses, restructure costs and other income. EBITDA, which is non-IFRS information, is a widely used 'industry standard' term. 4 Underlying All-In Cash Expenditure = total cash cost of production plus non-production costs, capital expenditure, KM care & maintenance expenses, corporate costs, exploration costs and debt servicing costs and mandatory repayments, excluding one-off restructuring and non-recurring costs. Underlying All-In Cash Expenditure, which is a non-IFRS measure, is widely used in the mining industry as a benchmark to reflect operating performance. 5 All frequency rates are per million personnel hours.
News Article | February 21, 2017
New AREVA[i] (Paris:AREVA) et son partenaire chinois China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) ont signé aujourd’hui à Pékin, en présence du Premier ministre de la République populaire de Chine, M. Li Keqiang, et du Premier ministre de la République française, M. Bernard Cazeneuve, un accord-cadre de coopération industrielle et commerciale. Aboutissement de la coopération historique entre AREVA et CNNC, ce contrat porte sur les activités du cycle du combustible nucléaire. Il conforte les négociations industrielles en cours entre New AREVA et CNNC (notamment le projet commercial d’une usine de retraitement-recyclage) et ouvre la voie à de nouveaux débouchés industriels et commerciaux entre les deux pays. New AREVA valorise les matières nucléaires afin qu’elles contribuent au développement de la société, en premier lieu dans le domaine de l’énergie. Le groupe propose des produits, technologies et services à forte valeur ajoutée sur l’ensemble du cycle du combustible nucléaire qui couvre les activités mines, chimie de l’uranium, enrichissement, recyclage des combustibles usés, logistique, démantèlement et ingénierie. New AREVA et ses 20 000 collaborateurs mettent leur expertise, leur maîtrise des technologies de pointe, leur recherche permanente d’innovation et leur exigence absolue en matière de sûreté et de sécurité au service de leurs clients en France et à l’international.
News Article | February 21, 2017
New AREVA1 (Paris:AREVA) and its Chinese partner China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) signed today in Beijing, in the presence of the Prime Minister of People's Republic of China, Mr. Li Keqiang, and the Prime Minister of the French Republic, Mr. Bernard Cazeneuve, a framework agreement for an industrial & commercial cooperation. Fruit of the long-standing cooperation between AREVA and CNNC this agreement covers the nuclear fuel cycle activities. It supports the on-going industrial negotiations between New AREVA and CNNC (Chinese commercial reprocessing-recycling plant project in particular) and opens up new industrial and commercial opportunities for both sides. This agreement is a key step in the deepening of the civil nuclear energy cooperation between France and China, and aligns with the expectations set by the two governments in their Joint Statement on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation of June 30, 2015. Meanwhile the capital of New AREVA remains open for an investment of CNNC within the same framework as the agreements currently being finalized with two investors. MORE ABOUT NEW AREVA New AREVA transforms nuclear materials so that they can be used to support the development of society, first and foremost in the field of energy. The group offers products, technologies and services with high added value throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle, with activities encompassing mining, uranium chemistry, enrichment, used fuel recycling, logistics, dismantling and engineering. New AREVA and its 20,000 employees bring to bear their expertise and their mastery of cutting-edge technology, as well as their permanent search for innovation and their unwavering dedication to safety, to serve their customers in France and abroad. 1 Entity bringing together all of AREVA's nuclear fuel cycle activities
News Article | February 15, 2017
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Feb. 15, 2017) - GoviEx Uranium Inc. (TSX VENTURE:GXU) ("GoviEx" or "Company") is pleased to announce it has engaged Houlihan Lokey EMEA, LLP as financial advisor to assist the Company with the securing of potential long-term off-take agreements in relation to its Madaouela Uranium Project ("the Madaouela Project") in Niger. "We believe there is potential for a substantial wave of new contracting for long-term uranium supply to commence in response to growing demand for carbon-free nuclear energy and the existence of uncovered utility requirements," commented Govind Friedland, Executive Chairman of GoviEx. "In the past two months, the spot price of uranium has risen by more than 40%." "We also expect long-term contract prices to rise to a point where floor-price-based off-take agreements will provide good economics for our Madaouela Project(1). We look forward to working with the Houlihan Lokey team in this regard as we continue to move towards the planned development of the Company's fully-permitted Madaouela Project." The engagement of Houlihan Lokey represents part of an integrated four-part strategy developed by the Company to advance the Madaouela Project, and follows the previously announced appointment of Medea Capital Partners Ltd. as a project debt advisor. The four-part strategy, working towards a production decision, includes: The Houlihan Lokey team has considerable experience in the uranium and nuclear energy sectors, having worked with companies such as Paladin Energy, Électricité de France S.A. (EDF), AREVA, Kazatomprom and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), over the past 10 years. GoviEx is a mineral resource company focused on the exploration and development of uranium properties. GoviEx's principal objective is to become a significant uranium producer through the continued exploration and development of its Mine Permitted Madaouela Project and its other uranium properties in Africa. Houlihan Lokey is a global investment bank with expertise in mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, financial restructuring, valuation, and strategic consulting. The firm serves corporations, institutions, and governments worldwide with offices in the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. This press release may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All information and statements other than statements of current or historical facts contained in this press release are forward-looking information. Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties concerning the specific factors disclosed here and elsewhere in GoviEx's periodic filings with Canadian securities regulators. When used in this news release, words such as "will", "could", "plan", "estimate", "expect", "intend", "may", "potential", "should," and similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. Information provided in this document is necessarily summarized and may not contain all available material information. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the potential for a substantial wave of new contracting for long-term uranium supply to commence in response to growing demand for carbon-free nuclear energy and the existence of uncovered utility requirements, GoviEx's expectations for long-term contract prices to rise to a point where floor-price-based off-take agreements will provide good economics for our Madaouela Project, the potential for GoviEx to enter into off-take agreements, the planned integrated four-part strategy working towards a production decision for the development of the Madaouela Project and other statements that are not facts. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by management based on the business and markets in which GoviEx operates, are inherently subject to significant operational, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Assumptions upon which forward looking statements have been made include that there will continue to be growing demand for carbon-free nuclear energy and the existence of uncovered utility requirements that may result in a substantial wave of new contracting for long-term uranium supply to commence, long-term contract prices will rise to a point where floor-price-based off-take agreements will provide good economics for the Madaouela Project, GoviEx will be able to secure one or more long-term off-take agreements for its Madaouela Project with the help of Houlihan Lokey and that the securing of such long-term off-take agreements will meet one part of GoviEx's integrated four-part strategy to advance the Madaouela Project towards a production decision. In addition, the factors described or referred to in the section entitled "Financial Risks and Management Objectives" in the MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2015, of GoviEx, which is available on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com, should be reviewed in conjunction with the information found in this news release. Although GoviEx has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements, including if there is no increased demand or a reduced demand for carbon-free nuclear energy and less than expected uncovered utility requirements, long-term contract prices do not rise or fall, the parties are unable to secure long-term off-take agreements as anticipated or at all, the failure to meet the targeted timelines of GoviEx's integrated four-part strategy that is anticipated to allow GoviEx to be in a position to make production decision, if any. There can be other factors that cause results, performance or achievements not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate or that management's expectations or estimates of future developments, circumstances or results will materialize. As a result of these risks and uncertainties, the appointment of Houlihan Lokey could be modified, restricted or terminated, and the results or events predicted in these forward-looking statements may differ materially from actual results or events. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this news release are made as of the date of this news release, and GoviEx disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise such information, except as required by applicable law, and GoviEx assumes no any liability for disclosure relating to the other company herein. Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
News Article | August 7, 2016
A controversial Chinese company has been selected to bid for millions of pounds of public money in a UK government competition to develop mini nuclear power stations. The China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) features twice in a government list of 33 projects and companies deemed eligible to compete for a share in up to £250m to develop so-called small modular reactors (SMR). The involvement of a different Chinese company in the high-profile Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was widely believed to have prompted the government’s decision to pause the deal at the 11th hour last month. Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s co-chief of staff, has previously expressed alarm at the prospect of CNNC having such close access to the UK’s energy infrastructure because it would give the state-owned firm the potential ability to build weaknesses into computer systems. The company was formerly China’s Ministry of Nuclear Industry and developed the country’s atomic bomb and nuclear submarines, as well as being a key player in its nuclear power industry. In an article on the ConservativeHome website, Timothy singled out CNNC’s military links as a reason the UK government should be wary of such involvement. “For those who believe that such an eventuality [shutting down UK energy at will] is unlikely, the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation – one of the state-owned companies involved in the plans for the British nuclear plants – says on its website that it is responsible not just for ‘increasing the value of state assets and developing the society’ but the ‘building of national defence’,” he wrote. Tom Burke, chairman of the environment thinktank E3G and a former British government adviser, said there were legitimate concerns over the company. “I don’t fuss very much about the Chinese owning a nuclear power station [China General Nuclear in the case of Hinkley]. But I would be much more concerned about bringing in CNNC because they are known to be much more closely involved with the military and Chinese nuclear weapons programmes,” he said. CNNC was not involved in the original Hinkley deal but it was reported on Sunday that the company has agreed in principle to buy half of China’s 33% stake in the £24bn project if it goes ahead. The list of companies accepted for the competition was published briefly, apparently accidentally, on the website of the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Friday before being deleted. It reads as a who’s-who of US, British, Japanese and Chinese industry players hoping to develop and build small modular reactors. These are much smaller than conventional nuclear plants with a capacity of less than 300MW – or a 10th of what Hinkley Point C should provide. They are pitched by industry as a cheaper and quicker way to provide low-carbon energy capacity than conventional big nuclear plants because they could be built in a factory and transported to where their power is needed. The US and UK are racing to be the most attractive home for the first of the new designs to be commissioned. Last November, George Osborne promised £250m over five years for a nuclear research and development programme to “revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies”. An undisclosed amount of that sum is for a competition to find the best value SMR design for the UK, to “pave the way” towards building one in the UK in the 2020s. CNNC sits alongside US companies such as NuScale; British ones including Rolls-Royce, Sheffield Forgemasters and Tokamak Energy; Japanese-owned Westinghouse; and the US-Japanese partnership GE-Hitachi, as participants the government considers eligible for phase one of its competition. CNNC’s chief designer of small nuclear plants visited a conference in London last year to pitch a plan for cooperating with UK industry, and is already partnering with Rolls-Royce. It hopes to build the first SMR in the UK, with future ones sold around the world. NuScale Power put itself forward for the competition in the spring. Its design, said its managing director, Tom Mundy, “answers the particular needs of the UK’s energy market and the wider UK economy, and we intend to participate fully in the government’s competition”. The 33 participants will be whittled down in several phases, with the announcement of the eventual winners scheduled for late 2017. Announcing the postponement of the Hinkley decision last month, the business secretary, Greg Clark, said: “The UK needs a reliable and secure energy supply and the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix.” When asked about the list published on Friday, a spokeswoman for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said: “In March 2016, the government launched the first phase of a competition to identify the best value SMR for the UK. The ambition is to create an opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in SMRs. “Those companies which are eligible to participate in the competition have been aware for over two months.”