Fundamentals of Nuclear Power

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Juan S. Giraldo Douglas J. Gotham David G. Nderitu Paul V. Preckel Darla J. Mize State Utility Forecasting Group December 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... v Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Current state of nuclear power generation in the U.S. ......................................... 1 1.2 Nuclear power around the world ........................................................................... 4 2. Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 How nuclear power plants generate electricity ..................................................... 9 2.2 Radioactive decay .................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Nuclear reaction ...................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Thermal reactors ................................................................................................... 12 2.5 Fast reactors .......................................................................................................... 12 2.6 Nuclear fuel cycle .................................................................................................. 13 2.7 Front end ............................................................................................................. 13 2.8 Service period ....................................................................................................... 16 2.9 Back end ............................................................................................................... 16 3. Nuclear Reactors .............................................................................................................. 22 3.1 Technologies being used in the U.S. .................................................................... 22 3.2 Technologies being used around the world ......................................................... 23 3.3 New nuclear technology ....................................................................................... 25 3.4 Small modular reactors ........................................................................................ 29 3.5 Generation IV reactors ......................................................................................... 34 4. Economics of new nuclear power ..................................................................................... 41 4.1 Costs of new nuclear power ................................................................................ 41 4.2 Economic competitiveness .................................................................................. 43 5. Government Regulations and Incentives ........................................................................ 48 5.1 Licensing ............................................................................................................... 48 5.2 Economic incentives ............................................................................................. 50 6. Safety ............................................................................................................................... 52 6.1 Accidents history ................................................................................................... 53 6.2 Achieving safety .................................................................................................... 58 6.3 Siting...................................................................................................................... 61 i 6.4 Industry organizations ......................................................................................... 62 6.5 International cooperation ..................................................................................... 62 6.6 Terrorism ............................................................................................................... 62 7. Decommissioning ............................................................................................................. 65 7.1 Decommissioning process .................................................................................... 65 7.2 Decommissioning costs ......................................................................................... 66 ii List of Figures 1-1 Location and years of operation for U.S. commercial power reactors ............................. 1 1-2 Capacity and generation of U.S. nuclear power plants ...................................................... 2 1-3 Number of reactors in operation worldwide ...................................................................... 6 1-4 Share of nuclear power generation in countries with nuclear power ............................... 6 2-1 Nuclear fission ................................................................................................................... 10 2-2 Nuclear chain reaction ...................................................................................................... 11 2-3 Mining via in situ leaching ................................................................................................ 14 2-4 Uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) ................................................................................... 14 2-5 Fuel assembly ................................................................................................................... 16 2-6 Spent fuel storage pool ..................................................................................................... 17 2-7 Dry cask storage ................................................................................................................ 18 2-8 Dry storage at the Connecticut Yankee site ................................................................... 19 3-1 Pressurized water reactor ................................................................................................ 22 3-2 Boiling water reactor ....................................................................................................... 23 3-3 Advanced gas cooled reactor ........................................................................................... 24 3-4 Advanced boiling water reactor ....................................................................................... 27 3-5 AP 1000 reactor ................................................................................................................ 28 3-6 NuScale reactor ................................................................................................................. 30 3-7 NuScale multi-unit complex .............................................................................................. 31 3-8 Toshiba 4S reactor ............................................................................................................ 32 3-9 Hyperion power facility ..................................................................................................... 33 3-10 Evolution of nuclear power ............................................................................................... 35 6-1 Description of INES levels ................................................................................................ 54 6-2 Safety barriers for a boiling water reactor ....................................................................... 60 6-3 Construction of a containment wall ............................................................................... 61 iii List of Tables 1-1 Nuclear power plant applications ....................................................................................... 4 3-1 Japan’s ABWRs’ operating and capacity factors ............................................................... 26 4-1 Compilation of cost estimates .......................................................................................... 42 4-2 Operating and overnight capital costs for new sources of generation ........................... 43 4-3 Average levelized cost (2009 $/MWh) for plants entering service in 2016 ................... 45 6-1 Summary of severe accidents (>5 fatalities) that occurred in fossil, hydro, and nuclear energy chains in the period 1969-2000 ............................................................................ 52 6-2 Significant nuclear reactor accidents ............................................................................... 55 iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ABWR Advanced Boiling Water reactor AGR Advanced Gas cooled Reactor AP Advanced Passive 1000 APWR Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor BWR Boiling Water Reactor CANDU CANada Deuterium Uranium CNS Convention on Nuclear Safety CO2 Carbon
Recommended publications
  • Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the US
    Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage front cover WITH SUPPORT FROM: WITH SUPPORT FROM: By Robert Alvarez 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20036 - www.ips-dc.org May 2011 About the Author Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as a Senior Policy Advisor to the Secre- tary of Energy during the Clinton administration. Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power. Project On Government Oversight (POGO.org) was founded in 1981 as an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government. Institute for Policy Studies 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.ips-dc.org © 2011 Institute for Policy Studies [email protected] For additional copies of this report, see www.ips-dc.org Table of Contents Summary ...............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................4 Figure 1: Explosion Sequence at Reactor No. 3 ........................................................4 Figure 2: Reactor No. 3
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体/海外 [Format 2] Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体/海外 [Format 2] Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC 1.DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体/海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software 2.Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactors' Construction Costs
    Nuclear reactors’ construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress Lina Escobar Rangel and Michel Berthélemy Mines ParisTech - Centre for Industrial Economics CERNA International WPNE Workshop Project and Logistics Management in Nuclear New Build NEA Headquarters - Issy les Moulineaux, 11th March 2014 Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at Hinkley Point and Sizewell Hitachi → 2 or 3 new nuclear reactors at Wylfa and Oldbury NuGeneration → 3.6GW of new nuclear capacity at Moorside Fast-growing economies: China, India China has 28 reactors under construction and it is planned a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030 16 AP1000 reactors are planned to start to be constructed from 2014-2018 At least 6 ACC1000 in 4 different locations 2 EPRs in Guangdong Other technologies like VVER-1000, VVER-1200, CNP-600, etc are also envisioned Growing demand for nuclear power... Demand for nuclear power has increased in the past years and it is likely to keep on rising. Experienced countries: US, UK, Russia, South Korea According with UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change nuclear industry plans to develop around 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear EDF → 4 EPRs (6.4GW) at
    [Show full text]
  • Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns About Small Modular Reactors
    Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Edwin Lyman September 2013 © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Edwin Lyman is a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. More information is available about UCS at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/SMR and may also be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. Design: Catalano Design Front cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); reactors from top to bottom: © NuScale Power, LLC, © Holtec SMR, LLC, © 2012 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc., and © Westinghouse Electric Company. Back cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); © Westinghouse Electric Company (reactor). Acknowledgments This report was made possible by funding from Park Foundation, Inc., Wallace Research Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and UCS members. The author would like to thank Trudy E. Bell for outstanding editing, Rob Catalano for design and layout, Bryan Wadsworth for overseeing production, and Scott Kemp, Lisbeth Gronlund, and David Wright for useful discussions and comments on the report. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that funded the work or the individuals who reviewed it.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Water Reactor System Designed to Minimize Environmental Burden of Radioactive Waste
    Hitachi Review Vol. 63 (2014), No. 9 602 Featured Articles Light Water Reactor System Designed to Minimize Environmental Burden of Radioactive Waste Tetsushi Hino, Dr. Sci. OVERVIEW: One of the problems with nuclear power generation is the Masaya Ohtsuka, Dr. Eng. accumulation in radioactive waste of the long-lived TRUs generated as Kumiaki Moriya byproducts of the fission of uranium fuel. Hitachi is developing a nuclear reactor that can burn TRU fuel and is based on a BWR design that is Masayoshi Matsuura already in use in commercial reactors. Achieving the efficient fission of TRUs requires that the spectrum of neutron energies in the nuclear reactor be modified to promote nuclear reactions by these elements. By taking advantage of one of the features of BWRs, namely that their neutron energy spectrum is more easily controlled than that of other reactor types, the new reactor combines effective use of resources with a reduction in the load on the environment by using TRUs as fuel that can be repeatedly recycled to burn these elements up. This article describes the concept behind the INTRODUCTION RBWR along with the progress of its development, NUCLEAR power generation has an important role to as well as its specifications and features. play in both energy security and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. One of its problems, however, is the accumulation in radioactive waste from the long- RBWR CONCEPT lived transuranium elements (TRUs) generated as Plutonium Breeding Reactor byproducts of the fission of uranium fuel. The TRUs The original concept on which the RBWR is based include many different isotopes with half-lives ranging was the plutonium generation boiling water reactor from hundreds to tens of thousands of years or more.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Fusion-Driven Transmutation Research in China
    Progress in Fusion-Driven Transmutation Research in China Yican WU Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences P.O. Box 1126, Hefei, Anhui, 230031, China E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +86 551 5591310 1. Introduction Although the recent experiments and associated theoretical studies of fusion energy development have proven the feasibility of fusion power, it's commonly realized that it needs hard work before pure fusion energy could commercially and economically utilized. On the other hand, the fission nuclear industry has been falling on hard times recently since so far there has been no conclusion about how to deal with the long-lived wastes produced from the nuclear spent fuel and about how to solve the shortage of natural uranium ore in addition to nuclear safety and proliferation. It's a natural way to develop fusion-fission hybrid reactors including fuel producing reactors and waste transmuting reactors as an alternate strategy to speed up the time for producing energy since a hybrid reactor as a subcritical system can operate with lower fusion energy gain ratios Q, therefore the design of the fusion core for a hybrid system is easier than for a pure fusion reactor. The fusion-fission hybrid concept dates back to the earliest days of the fusion project when it was recognized that using fusion neutrons to breed nuclear fuel would vastly increase the energy from fusion plant. It appears to receive almost no attention since the mid 80's in the world, except in China who has given very serious consideration and has strong hybrid reactor activities since 1986 in the framework of the National Hi’Tech Program supported by the State Science and Technology Commission (SSTC) of China.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Analysis for Boiling Water Reactors
    Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Safety Analysis for Boiling Water Reactors A Summary GRS - 98 Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH Safety Analysis for Boiling Water Reactors A Summary E. Kersting J. von Linden D. Müller-Ecker W. Werner Translation by F. Janowski July 1993 GRS - 98 ISBN 3-923875-48-7 Note This report is the translation of GRS-95 "Sicherheitsanalyse für Siedewasserreaktoren - Zusammenfassende Darstellung". Recent analysis results - concerning the chapters on accident management, fire and earthquake - that were not included in the German text have been added to this translation. In cases of doubt, GRS-102 (main volume) is the factually correct version. Keywords Safety analysis, PSA, boiling water reactor, accidents, event-sequence analysis, systems analysis, fault-tree analysis, reliability data, accident management Abstract After completing the German Risk Study for pressurised water reactors, the Gesell­ schaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) has now conducted for the first time a probabilistic safety analysis for boiling water reactors (BWR) on behalf of the Federal Minister for Research and Technology (BMFT). Reactor safety is constantly developed in line with research findings and operating experience. Thus reactor safety is a dynamic process in which safety analyses play an important role. Probabilistic safety analyses determine the frequency of certain events (e.g. leaks in pipes) and the failure probabilities of the safety systems needed to control such events. The failure of safety systems initially leads to a hazard to the cooling of the reactor core. When such hazard states occur, there are accident­ management measures which can still be carried out in order to prevent core melt.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment
    INL/MIS-15-34247 Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment Curtis Wright Symposium xx/xx/xxxx www.inl.gov INL SMR Activities • INL works with all vendors to provide fair access to the laboratory benefits • INL works with industry on SMR technology and deployment • INL is supporting multiple LWR SMR vendors – Small, <300MWe reactors and less expensive reactors compared to current LWR reactors (Small) – Often, but not always, multiple reactors at the same site that can be deployed as power is needed (Modular) – Primary cooling system and reactor core in a single containment structure, but not always (Reactors) – Factory built, usually, which improves quality and costs • Integrated PWR SMR’s are closest to deployment – designed to be inherently safer and simple – primary reactor system inside a single factory built containment vessel – Higher dependence on passive systems to simplify operation and design Reactor Power Nuclear Plant Power Los Angeles Class Submarine -26 MW 5000 Enterprise Class Aircraft Carrier 8x 4000 Unit Power Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier 2x97MW, 194MW 3000 Plant Power NuScale Reactor 12 x 150MW, 1800MW 2000 Cooper BWR, 1743MW PowerThermal MW 1000 Westinghouse AP-1000, 3000MW 0 European Pressurized Reactor, 4953MW SMRs are Smaller VC Summer • Power less than 300MWe. Dearater – Current Plants 1000MWe – Physically smaller – Fewer inputs – Fits on power grid with less infrastructure – Built in a factory – Simplified designs VC Summer • Passive systems Core • Fewer components NuScale Reactor Multiple Units • SMR Nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Plant Organization and Staffing for Lessons Learned
    IAEA-TECDOC-1052 minium XA9848504 Nuclear power plant organization staffingand for improved performance: lessons learned INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY fl/U Lr\^ The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Power Engineering Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE: LESSONS LEARNED IAEA, VIENNA, 1998 IAEA-TECDOC-1052 ISSN 1011-4289 ©IAEA, 1998 Printe IAEe th AustriAn y i d b a November 1998 The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copies of these reports can be obtained from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders shoul accompaniee db prepaymeny db f Austriao t n Schillings 100, fore for e chequa th f mth IAEmf o n i n o i r eAo microfiche service coupons which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse. FOREWORD Experience from well operated nuclear power plants (NPPs) aroun worle dth d indicates that an organizational structure that effectively supports plant operation s i essentias n i l economically achieving high level f safet so operationa d yan l performance same th t e A .time , in many Member States, energy market e beinar s g opene o competitiont d n i s i t I . consideration of this new competitive energy market that this publication focuses on organization and staffing of NPPs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This publication is primarily intended for senior NPP and utility managers.
    [Show full text]
  • 038 12 Conduct of Operations
    TMI-1 UFSAR CHAPTER 12 – CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 12.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 12.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 12.1.1 OFFSITE ORGANIZATION 12.1.2 OPERATING ORGANIZATION 12.1.2.1 PLANT DIVISION 12.1.2.1.1 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.2 MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.3 WORK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.4 RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.5 CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.2 SECURITY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.3 SITE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.3.1 PLANT ENGINEERING SECTION 12.1.2.3.2 DESIGN ENGINEERING SECTION 12.1.2.3.3 PROGRAMS SECTION 12.1.2.4 TRAINING DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.5 BUSINESS OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.6 REGULATORY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.7 MANAGER – HUMAN RESOURCES 12.1.2.8 PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 12.1.3 QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR PLANT PERSONNEL 12.1.4 SAFETY REVIEWS 12.2 TRAINING 12.2.1 TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.2 TECHNICAL TRAINING 12.2.2.1 MAINTENANCE TRAINING 12.2.2.2 RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS/CHEMISTRY TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.3 OPERATIONS TRAINING 12.2.3.1 REPLACEMENT OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM (AO/CRO/SRO) 12.2.3.2 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM (CRO/SRO) 12.2.3.3 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR (STA) TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.3.4 AUXILIARY OPERATOR (AO) REQUALIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.4 TRAINING SUPPORT 12.2.4.1 GENERAL EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.4.2 FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.4.3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.4.4 NOT USED 12.2.5 ENGINEERING SUPPORT PERSONNEL (ESP)TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.6 TRAINING RECORDS CHAPTER 12 12-i REV.
    [Show full text]
  • From Gen I to Gen III
    From Gen I to Gen III Gabriel Farkas Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava Ilkovicova 3, 81219 Bratislava [email protected] 14. 9. 2010 1 Evolution of Nuclear Reactors Generation I - demonstration reactors Generation II - working in the present Generation III - under construction 14. 9. 2010 2 Generation IV - R&D 14. 9. 2010 3 Expected development in nuclear technologies Prolongation of lifetieme of existing nuclear reactors Construction of new reactors in frame of Gen. III and IV . Figure 1 Replacement staggered over a 30-year period (2020 - 2050) Rate of construction : 2,000 MW/year 70000 60000 Lifetime 50000 prolongation 40000 Generation IV 30000 Actual reactors 20000 Generation III+ 10000 0 197519801985199019952000200520102015202020252030203520402045205020552060 14. 9. 2010 Average plant life : 48 years 4 Nuclear in Europe (Nuclear ~ 32% of total EU electricity production) SE, 7.3% UK, 7.9% SP, 5.8% BE,4.8% CZ, 2.5% GE, 16.3% FI, 2.4% BU, 1.8% Other 12.4% SK, 1.7% HU, 1.4% LT, 1.1% FR, 45.5% SI, 0.6% NL, RO, 0.5% 0.4% Source PRIS 14. 9. 2010 5 Central & Eastern Europe - Nuclear Landscape Russia Lithuania Ukraine 6 VVER440 Poland 1 RBMK 1300 2 VVER440 8 VVER1000 Min. of Energy 13 VVER1000 NNEGC State owned 11 RBMK 1 BN600 4 Graph Mod BWR Czech Republic Rosenergoatom State 4 VVER440 owned 2 VVER1000 CEZ/ 67% State Romania owned 2 Candu PHW Nuclearelectrica State owned Slovak Republic 4/6 VVER440 Bulgaria ENEL 67% owned 2/4 VVER1000 NEC State owned Hungary Armenia 4 VVER 440 1 VVER440 MVM State owned Armatomenergo, State owned 14.
    [Show full text]