DOCSLIB.ORG

Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang To cite this version: Mi Wang. Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radi- olysis and Corrosion Damage. 2013. hal-00841142 HAL Id: hal-00841142 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00841142 Submitted on 19 Aug 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés, UMR 7642 Bibliography Report June 2013 Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors – Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi WANG 1, 2 1 Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés – Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, CEA, Palaiseau, France 2 Laboratoire d’Etude de la Corrosion Aqueuse – CEA/DEN/DPC/SCCME, Centre de Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés Tél. : 33 1 69 33 44 80 28, route de Saclay, F91128 Palaiseau Fax : 33 1 69 33 45 54 http://www.lsi.polytechnique.fr 2 Contents 1 Light Water Reactors5 1.1 General Introduction.....................................6 1.1.A Main Components..................................6 1.2 Classification of Nuclear Reactors..............................8 1.2.A Classified via Nuclear reaction............................8 1.2.B Classified by Coolant and Moderator........................8 1.2.C Classified via Generation...............................8 1.3 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)..............................9 1.3.A Introduction......................................9 1.3.B Water Chemistry Control in BWRs......................... 10 1.4 Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)............................ 13 1.4.A The Primary and the Secondary Circuits of PWRs................ 13 1.4.B Water Chemistry Control in the Primary Circuit................. 15 1.4.C Water Chemistry Control in the Secondary Circuit................ 18 1.5 Summary........................................... 18 References.............................................. 20 2 Water Radiolysis 23 2.1 The Interaction of Radiation with Matter......................... 25 2.1.A Energy Loss via Interactions............................. 25 2.1.B Stopping Power and Linear Energy Transfer (LET)................ 30 2.1.C Different types of radiation............................. 33 2.2 Pure Water Radiolysis.................................... 38 2.2.A Mechanism of Water Radiolysis........................... 38 2.2.B Radiolytic Yields................................... 43 2.3 PWR Water Radiolysis.................................... 50 2.3.A Radiolysis in the Presence of H2,H2O2 and O2 .................. 50 2.3.B Critical Hydrogen Concentration (CHC)...................... 52 2.3.C Radiolysis in the Presence of Bore and Lithium.................. 53 2.3.D Influence of Other Parameters on Radiolytic Yields................ 54 2.4 Summary........................................... 61 References.............................................. 62 3 CONTENTS 3 Corrosion issues of 316L under Primary PWR Conditions 69 3.1 The Oxide on 316L Formed under Primary PWR Water................. 71 3.1.A Double-Layer Structure Oxide............................ 72 3.1.B The Mechanism of Oxide Formation........................ 74 3.1.C The Electronic Properties of Oxide Film...................... 80 3.1.D Influence of Different Parameters on The Oxide.................. 84 3.2 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC).............................. 94 3.2.A SCC without Irradiation............................... 95 3.2.B IASCC - Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking............. 98 3.3 Summary........................................... 106 References.............................................. 107 4 Chapter 1 Light Water Reactors 1.1 General Introduction.................................6 1.1.A Main Components...................................6 1.2 Classification of Nuclear Reactors.........................8 1.2.A Classified via Nuclear reaction............................8 1.2.B Classified by Coolant and Moderator........................8 1.2.C Classified via Generation...............................8 1.3 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)..........................9 1.3.A Introduction.......................................9 1.3.B Water Chemistry Control in BWRs......................... 10 1.3.B.1 Impurities.................................. 11 1.3.B.2 Mitigating Effects on Materials Degradation.............. 11 1.3.B.3 Chemistry Control Effects on Radiation Fields............. 12 1.3.B.4 Fuels Performance Issues.......................... 12 1.3.B.5 Other factors................................. 12 1.4 Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)....................... 13 1.4.A The Primary and the Secondary Circuits of PWRs................ 13 1.4.B Water Chemistry Control in the Primary Circuit................. 15 1.4.B.1 Dissolved Hydrogen............................. 15 1.4.B.2 Balance of Li/B/pHT ............................ 16 1.4.B.3 Zinc Injection................................ 17 1.4.C Water Chemistry Control in the Secondary Circuit................ 18 1.5 Summary......................................... 18 References........................................... 20 5 CHAPTER 1. LIGHT WATER REACTORS Nuclear power is one of the major sources of energy and electricity production. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the world’s energy and 13 - 15% of the world’s electricty [1,2]. Nuclear power plants are conventional thermal power stations in which the heat sources are nuclear reactors. They are devices to initiate and control sustained nuclear chain reactions and the heat from nuclear fission is passed to a thermal fluid (water or gas), which runs through turbines to generate power. Most of the nuclear reactors use energy form the the fission of the nucleus of the Uranium 235 isotope, 235U. 235 In France, the nuclear fuel is used in the form of uranium dioxide enriched to 3:5 - 4% in UO2 [3]. The most common types of nuclear reactors are thermal reactors, among which the most popular are Light Water Reactors (LWRs). Because the LWRs are simple and less expressive to build compared to other nuclear reactors, they make up the vast majority of civil nuclear reactors and naval propulsion reactors in service. The LWRs can be subdivided into three categories: Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) and Supercritical Water Reactors (SWRs). SWRs, now named as KERENA, are based on the successful tradition of BWR technology and is currently still at the design stage [4]. PWRs are the most common civil nuclear reactors in the world. In France, they are the only ones in operation today. 1.1 General Introduction 1.1.A Main Components The Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) is the highest priority key component in a nuclear power plant because it houses the nuclear reactor core and all associated support and alignment devices. It is the major part of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). The major components of RPV are the reactor vessel, the core barrel, the reactor core and the upper internals package. Nuclear fuel is housed in the core barrel slides down inside of the reactor vessel [5,6]. They are the places that nuclear reactions take place. Most nuclear fuels used inside nuclear reactor core contain heavy fissile elements that are ca- pable of nuclear fission, and the most common fissile nuclear fuels are Uranium 235. When a fissile atomic nuclei 235U, absorbs a neutron, it splits into two or more fast-moving lighter nuclei (the fission products), releasing kinetic energy, γ radiation and free neutrons. A portion of these neutrons may later be absorbed by other fissile atoms and trigger further fission events, which release more neutrons. This is called a nuclear chain reaction. The reactor core generates heat in several ways: • The kinetic energy of fission products is converted to thermal energy when these nuclei collide with nearby atoms. • Some of the γ rays produced during fission are absorbed by the reactor, their energy being converted to heat. • Heat is produced by the radioactive decay of fission products and materials that have been activated by neutron absorption. As a matter of fact, not all these neutrons can initiate further fission reactions due to their low cross section of capturing 235U, so for most nuclear reactors, a neutron moderator is necessary. It is 6 1.1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION a medium that reduces the speed of fast neutrons, thereby turning them into thermal neutrons which are capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction involving Uranium 235. Since energy is conserved, the reduction of the neutron kinetic energy takes place by transferring energy to a moderator. This process of the reduction of the initial high kinetic energy of free neutrons, neutron slowing down, is called moderation, or thermalisation. For the safety of nuclear reactors, reactivity control of nuclear chain reaction is necessary to sustain the core at a low level of power efficiency. The continuous chain reactions of a nuclear fission reactor depends upon at least one neutron from each fission being absorbed by another
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equipment for Current Nuclear Plant Projects
    Ikata Nuclear Power Plant on the island of Shikoku, Japan. Owned and operated by the Shikoku Electric Power Company. This PWR has no cooling tower but cools by direct exchange with the ocean. Equipment for current nuclear plant projects The nuclear industry is undergoing a globalisation process. Companies like Westinghouse, GE, Areva and MHI are increasingly selling their expertise beyond their national borders; technology transfers and tie-ups are more frequent; plans are being laid to harness nuclear energy for desalinisation projects and - an industry first - for the manufacture of steel. Focus on Nuclear Power Generation surveys the scene, casting a particularly close eye on the role of suppliers in the slow but steady resurgence on the nuclear power industry. By James Chater he much talked about “nuclear still small. No wonder, then, that the 2007 the Finnish steel company announced renaissance” is happening, but progress is construction of nuclear power stations is put it had teamed up with Sweden's Boliden, Tslow. It takes time to choose a location, forward as a way of plugging the energy gap Rauman Energia, Katternoe and E.ON to ensure the investment funds are in place, seek - even though, if we are to believe critics of form Fennovoima, which aims to construct a the approvals, consult local communities and nuclear power, the new wave of power 1000-1800MW nuclear power plant in address the safety issues. And the market has stations being planned will not be built in Finland. Power generation requires steel, several options to choose from: APWRs from time to avert an energy shortage.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Salts As Blanket Fluids in Controlled Fusion Reactors [Disc 6]
    r1 0 R N L-TM-4047 MOLTEN SALTS AS BLANKET FLUIDS IN CONTROLLED FUSION REACTORS W. R. Grimes Stanley Cantor .:, .:, .- t. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. om-TM- 4047 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 REACTOR CHENISTRY DIVISION MOLTEN SALTS AS BLANKET FLUIDS IN CONTROLLED FUSION REACTORS W. R. Grimes and Stanley Cantor DECEMBER 1972 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the 1J.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com- pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. i iii CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................. 1 Introduction ........................... 2 Behavior of Li2BeFq in a Eypothetical CTR ............3 Effects of Strong Magnetic Fields .............5 Effects on Chemical Stability .............5 Effects on Fluid Dynamics ...............7 Production of Tritium ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety. Proceedings of the Specialists` Meeting
    J — v ft INIS-mf—15B1 7 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIALISTS’ MEETING JOINTLY ORGANISED BY THE IAEA AND NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. AND HELD IN GLOUCESTER, UK 14-17 MAY 1996 NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. 1996 VOL INTRODUCTION The Specialists ’ Meeting on Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety, held in Gloucester, UK, 14 - 17 May 1996, was organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of the International Working Group on Nuclear Power Plant Control and Instrumentation (IWG-NPPCI) and the International Task Force on NPP Diagnostics in co-operation with Nuclear Electric Ltd. The 50 participants, representing 21 Member States (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, UK and USA), reviewed the current approaches in Member States in the area of monitoring and diagnosis systems. The Meeting attempted to identify advanced techniques in the field of diagnostics of electrical and mechanical components for safety and operation improvements, reviewed actual practices and experiences related to the application of those systems with special emphasis on real occurrences, exchanged current experiences with diagnostics as a means for predictive maintenance. Monitoring of the electrical and mechanical components of systems is directly associated with the performance and safety of nuclear power plants. On-line monitoring and diagnostic systems have been applied to reactor vessel internals, pumps, safety and relief valves and turbine generators. The monitoring techniques include nose analysis, vibration analysis, and loose parts detection.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Space Power Safety and Facility Guidelines Study
    NUCLEAR SPACE POWER SAFETY AND FACILITY GUIDELINES STUDY (SEPTEMBER 1995) rss Has NUCLEAR SPACE POWER SAFETY AND FACILITY GUIDELINES STUDY (11 September 1995) Prepared for: Department of Energy Office of Procurement Assistance and Program Management HR-522.2 Washington, D.C. 20585 by: William F. Mehlman The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Maryland 20723-6099 in response to: Department of Energy grant to The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory DE-FG01-94NE32180 dated 27 September 1994 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. IfH DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE ...1 1.2 BACKGROUND 1 1.3 SCOPE 3 2.0 NUCLEAR SPACE SAFETY GUIDELINES AND CONSIDERATIONS .
    [Show full text]
  • Cooling Wide-Bandgap Materials in Power Electronics
    Cooling Wide-Bandgap Materials in Power Electronics By Josh Perry Marketing Communications Specialist Advanced Thermal Solutions, Inc. (ATS) Engineers are always looking for an edge in their designs to extract as much power and performance as possible from a system, while attempting to meet industry trends in miniaturization. In the power electronics industry, this has required an examination of the materials being used to overcome inherent limitations from heat, voltage, or switching speed. Engineers are using wide-bandgap materials to expand the capabilities of power electronics, pushing them beyond the thermal and electrical limits of silicon-based components. (Background image created by Xb100 – Freepik.com) For years, silicon was the answer for the power electronics market, but in the past decade there has been a growing movement towards wide-bandgap materials, particularly silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN). Wide-bandgap materials have higher breakdown voltage and perform more 1 efficiently at high temperatures than silicon-based components. [1] Recent research indicated, “For commercial applications above 400 volts, SiC stands out as a viable near-term commercial opportunity especially for single-chip current ratings in excess of 20 amps.” [2] This efficiency allows systems to consume less power, charge faster, and convert energy at a higher rate. A recent article from Electronic Design explained that SiC power devices “operate at higher switching speeds and higher temperatures with lower losses than conventional silicon.” SiC has an internal resistance that is 100 times lower than silicon and a breakdown electric field of 2.8 MV/cm, which is far higher than silicon’s 0.3 MV/cm, meaning that SiC components can handle the same level of current in smaller packages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power: Analysis of Recent Studies
    Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The economics of nuclear power: analysis of recent studies by Steve Thomas July 2005 PSIRU University of Greenwich www.psiru.org 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 4 3. OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE UK ................................................................................ 7 4. CURRENT DESIGNS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1. PWRS ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1. EPR........................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. AP-1000.................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.3. System 80+/APR-1400............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.4. APWR ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization of Radioanalytical Methods for Determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in Waste and Environmental Samples
    NKS-356 ISBN 978-87-7893-440-6 Standardization of Radioanalytical Methods for Determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in Waste and Environmental Samples Xiaolin Hou 1) Laura Togneri 2) Mattias Olsson 3) Sofie Englund 4) Olof Gottfridsson 5) Martin Forsström 6) Hannele Hironen 7) 1) Technical university of Denmark, DTU Nutech 2) Loviisa Power Plant, Fortum Power, Finland 3) Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, Sweden 4) OKG Aktiebolag, Sweden 5) Ringhals AB, Sweden 6) Studsvik Nuclear AB, Sweden (7) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Finland January 2016 Abstract This report presents the progress on the NKS-B STANDMETHOD project which was conduced in 2014-2015, aiming to establish a Nordic standard methods for the determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in nuclear reactor process- ing water samples as well as other waste and environmental samples. Two inter-comparison excercises for determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in waste samples have been organized in 2014 and 2015, an evaluation of the results is given in this report. Based on the the results from this project in 2014-2015, Nordic standard methods for determination 63Ni in nuclear reactor processing water and for simultaneous determination of 55Fe and 63Ni in other types of waste and environmental samples respectively are proposed. Meanwhile an analytical method for determination of 55Fe in reactor water samples is also recommended. In addition, some procedures for sequential separation of actinides are presented for the simultaneous determinaiton of isotopes of actinides in waste samples are presented. Key words Radioanalysis; 63Ni; 55Fe; standard method; reactor water NKS-356 ISBN 978-87-7893-440-6 Electronic report, January 2016 NKS Secretariat P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Journal, Spring 2010: Nuclear Modular Construction
    nterest in nuclear power is growing The STory in Brief globally. A number of countries with- I out any previous nuclear history— Builders of new nuclear plants will save substantial such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Vietnam, time and money with modular construction tech- Belarus, and the United Arab Emirates— are actively pursuing nuclear power plant niques—installing large, integrated component development. Asia, which didn’t experi- ence the slowdown in nuclear power plant packages that have been tested at the factory development that has gripped the West for the past 20–30 years, is rapidly adding to rather than assembling and testing individual pieces its nuclear fleet. New reactors are now at the construction site. EPRI is working with utilities under construction in Europe, and the United States will likely see the first new and manufacturers to ensure that module inspect- reactors built in three decades now that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has ions, tests, and qualifications will be robust and offered conditional commitments for loan certifiable. guarantees to Southern Company. But the new generation of reactors will to ensure that inspections, tests, and quali- hours. The target for the thirtieth is below not be built the same way as those built fications conducted on the modules are not 8 million. Hitachi-GE said that since 1990, decades ago. Modular construction tech- invalidated when the modules are shipped, construction time for its projects has been niques used in Japan and by the U.S. Navy stored, and installed.” reduced by nearly 20%, and site construc- are being adopted, with the result that tion worker-hours, by nearly 40%.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2
    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
    [Show full text]
  • MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107
    MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. 16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU December 19, 2008 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. JefferyA. Ciocco, Docket No. 52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF-08278 Subject: MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107 Reference: 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0, SRP Section: 03.09.04 - Control Rod Drive Systems, Application Section: 3.9.4," dated 11/24/2008 With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") documents as listed in Enclosure. Enclosed is the response to 1 RAI contained within Reference 1. As indicated in the enclosed materials, this submittal contains information that MHI considers proprietary, and therefore should be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4) as trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential. A non-proprietary version of the document is also being submitted with the information identified as proprietary redacted and replaced by the designation "[ ]". This letter includes a copy of the proprietary version (Enclosure 2), a copy of the non- proprietary version (Enclosure 3), and the Affidavit of Yoshiki Ogata (Enclosure 1) which identifies the reasons MHI respectfully requests that all materials designated as "Proprietary" in Enclosure 2 be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4). Please contact Dr. C. Keith Paulson, Senior Technical Manager, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. if the NRC has questions concerning any aspect of the submittals.
    [Show full text]
  • Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants: High Burnup and Mixed Oxide Fuels
    ERIINRC 02-202 ACCIDENT SOURCE TERMS FOR LIGHT-WATER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: HIGH BURNUP AND MIXED OXIDE FUELS Draft Report: June 2002 Final Report: November 2002 Energy Research, Inc. - P.O. Box 2034 Rockville, Maryland 20847-2034 Work Performed Under the Auspices of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, D.C. 20555 ERL/NRC 02-202 ACCIDENT SOURCE TERMS FOR LIGHT-WATER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: HIGH BURNUP AND MIXED OXIDE FUELS Draft Report: June 2002 Final Report: November 2002 Energy Research, Inc. P. 0. Box 2034 Rockville, Maryland 20847-2034 Work performed under the auspices of United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. Under Contract Number NRC-04-97-040 I This page intentionally left blank PREFACE performed by a This report has been prepared by Energy Research, Inc. based on work Office panel of experts organized by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if necessary, of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to develop recommendations for changes, to high burnup to the revised source term as published inlNUREG-1465, for application and mixed oxide fuels. the panel facilitator, and Dr. Brent Boyack of Los Alamos National Laboratory served as of the final report. Energy Research, Inc. has been responsible for the preparation Individual contributors to this report include: Executive Summary M. Khatib-Rahbar Section 1 M. Khatib-Rahbar Section 2 H. Nourbakhsh Section 3 B. Boyack Section 4 M. Khatib-Rahbar A. Hidaka of the Japan Substantial technical input was provided to the panel, by Mr. Evrard of the Institut de Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power: an Update
    The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update By Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schumannstraße 8 10117 Berlin Die grüne politische Stiftung Telefon 030.285 34-0 Fax 030.285 34-109 www.boell.de Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation PSIRU University of Greenwich – www.psiru.org Contents 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 7 3. KEY DETERMINANTS OF NUCLEAR ECONOMICS .................................................................................. 13 3.1. CONSTRUCTION COST AND TIME ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1. Unreliability of data................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2. Difficulties of forecasting....................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3. Learning, scale economies, and technical progress ................................................................................ 17 3.1.4. Construction time ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]