DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Energy of the Future: What Research for Which Objectives?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Energy of the Future: What Research for Which Objectives? MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 3 Commissariat à l’énergie atomique e-den A monograph of the Nuclear Energy Directorate Nuclear energy of the future: what research for which objectives? Éditions techniques MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 2 DEN monographs A monograph of the Nuclear Energy Directorate Commissariat à l’énergie atomique, 31-33, rue de la Fédération 75752 Paris Cedex 15 Tél. : +33-1 40 56 10 00 Scientific comitee Michel Alexandre, Michel Beauvy, Georges Berthoud, Mireille Defranceschi, Gérard Ducros, Yannick Guérin, Yves Limoge, Charles Madic, Gérard Santarini, Jean-Marie Seiler, Pierre Sollogoub, Étienne Vernaz, Research Directors. The following people participated in this work: Fanny Bazile, Patrice Bernard, Bernard Bonin, Jacques Bouchard, Jean-Claude Bouchter, Bernard Boullis, Franck Carré, Jean Cazalet, Alain Marvy, Valérie Moulin, Emmanuel Touron, Yves Terrien. Publishing Supervisor: Philippe Pradel. Editorial Board: Bernard Bonin (Managing Editor), Bernard Bouquin, Martine Dozol, Michel Jorda, Jean-Pierre Moncouyoux, Alain Vallée. Administrator: Fanny Bazile. Editor: Jean-François Parisot. Graphic concept: Pierre Finot. Cover illustration: Véronique Frouard. Correspondence: all correspondence can be addressed to the Editor or to CEA / DEN Direction scientifique, CEA Saclay 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex. Tél. : + 33-1 69 08 16 75. © CEA Saclay and Groupe Moniteur (Éditions du Moniteur), Paris, 2006 The information contained in this document can be freely reproduced, with the agreement of the Editorial Board and due mention of its origin. MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 5 Preface After a dazzling start in the 1950s as a promising, inexhaustible, cost-effective energy source, nuclear energy was rejected by majority opinion in several countries in North America and Western Europe three to four decades later, suddenly bringing its development to a halt. Although the 1973 and 1979 oil crises marked the beginning of massive construction pro- grammes in the countries most heavily penalized by oil imports, France and Japan in par- ticular, they were paradoxically followed by a gap in nuclear spending, first in the United States and then in Western Europe. However, more recent oil market tensions and emerg- ing concerns over non-renewable natural resources should have increased such spending. There are surely many reasons for this pause, which can in part be explained by the acci- dents in Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, which deeply impacted public opinion. On top of this, ecological movements and Green parties made their (highly publi- cized) fight against nuclear energy a key part of their platform. In France, whose population, with the exception of one case, had never disputed nuclear plant construction, negative attitudes began to surface in the late 1980s concerning the nuclear waste issue. Given Andra’s growing difficulties in finding an underground laboratory site, the Government decided to suspend work in favour of a one-year moratorium and sub- mitted the issue to the OPECST (French parliamentary evaluation office for scientific and technological choices). The Act of 30 December 1991 on nuclear waste management implemented the essence of the OPECST’s recommendations, in particular its definition of a diversified research pro- gramme and the basis for democratic discussion, thus helping calm the debate. That said, although it is now an accepted fact that long-term nuclear waste management is a neces- sity, there is still no guarantee that France will continue its electronuclear programme: for this reason, the recent energy act of 13 July 2005 merely aimed to “keep nuclear options open through 2020”. However, this century should be marked by renewed collective awareness that our gener- ation’s energy needs cannot be met without concern for the environment and without pre- serving future generations’ rights to satisfy these same needs. This concept of sustainable development is an inevitable challenge to our society. Today, it goes unquestioned that global warming due to increasing greenhouse gas emis- sions is a human-caused problem.The only remaining debate concerns the consequences of this climate change. Industrialized nations, which are for the most part responsible for the current situation, should feel particularly obliged to voluntarily take steps towards reducing emissions of these gases. Nuclear energy should gain considerable ground since, by nature, it does not produce this type of emissions and yet is an abundant, reliable and cost-effec- tive energy source. The situation varies from country to country. On one hand, European countries such as Germany and Belgium have chosen to progressively stop using nuclear energy, even with- out making plans for reversibility. On the other hand, countries like China, South Korea, or, Nuclear energy of the future: 5 what research for which objectives? MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 6 closer to home, Finland, are making huge investments in developing this technology. Furthermore, according to a recent statement by President Bush, the United States has decided to launch new nuclear power plant construction projects over the next ten years, picking up a process that had been on hold for over a quarter-century. Following France’s national energy debate that took place in the first half of 2003, the par- liamentary bill on energy adopted in June 2005 established the decision to build a demon- strator EPR in preparation for the switchover when currently operating plants will be shut down. Several signs lead us to believe that there could soon be a nuclear energy "renaissance", especially if the barrel of crude stays at or above the 70 USD mark. Nevertheless, the future of nuclear energy in our country, as in many others, will depend largely on its capacity to properly address the following two concerns: - First, its social acceptability: nuclear energy must be deployed under stringent safety and security conditions, generating as little final waste as possible, with perfect control of the waste that is produced in terms of its possible impact on human health and the environment. - Secondly, the availability of nuclear resources: it is important to guarantee a long-term supply of fuel, by preparing to resort to more economical natural fissile material systems which are less dependent on market fluctuations. These topics are a key part of the CEA Nuclear Energy Division’s work. Indeed, this divi- sion is a major player in the research that aims to support the nuclear industry’s efforts to improve reactor safety and competitiveness, providing the Public Authorities with the ele- ments necessary for making decisions on the long-term management of nuclear waste, and, finally, developing the nuclear systems of the future, essentially fast neutron reactors, which offer highly promising innovations in waste management and raw material use. As a fervent partisan of sharing as much scientific and technical knowledge as possible to a broad public, I believe that this research work, which calls upon a diverse array of scien- tific disciplines often at top worldwide level, should be presented and explained in priority to anyone who would like to form their own opinion on nuclear energy. For this reason, it is with great satisfaction that I welcome the publication of these DEN monographs. Through close reading of these works, they can become an invaluable source of information for the, I hope, many readers. I would like to thank all the researchers and engineers who, by contributing to this project, helped share their experience and knowledge. Bernard BIGOT High Commissioner for Atomic Energy MonoCEA GB 5/04/06 15:30 Page 7 Introduction Today energy problems are global problems. It is on the There are two conditions for this: firstly that we know how to international scale that we share resources and risks, in par- respond to public opinion concerns.Then that we are capable ticular those linked to climate changes caused by greenhouse of proposing new nuclear systems, even more effective in gas emissions. terms of safety or economy, but, above all, that will place in highest priority the sustainable development and non-pro- For this reason any new generation* of nuclear energy pro- liferation criteria. duction must be thought out based on serious projections on the international scale. But, making nuclear power acceptable is above all demonstrat- ing it “with proof”. From this point of view, the exemplary oper- Recent studies carried out by the World Energy Council or by ation of nuclear reactors for over 15 years, throughout the the International Energy Agency of the OECD provide us with world, is an invaluable advantage. The availability rates are the following trends: excellent, incidents, even minor, are decreasing and this enables public confidence to be gained. • An energy demand which will increase by 50 to 60% before 2020; In the last few years waste management has been seen as •A demand which will increase predominately in developing the main problem of nuclear power for public opinion. It alone countries; probably explains part of the defiance regarding nuclear power •Fossil energy which will continue to provide for the majority so well that it may have no future if we do not provide solutions of our needs; for it. That said, contrary to the idea often spread, technical • Finally, in spite of national efforts, CO2 emissions which will solutions do exist… probably be greater than the Kyoto objectives. In France, as in other countries in fact, the management of less active waste and of that which has a shorter lifetime, is a reality already implemented in industrial disposal Mtep centres. It must be remembered that this repre- 16,000 sents more than 90% of the overall volume of 14,000 nuclear waste. 12,000 Renewables The question of high level and long lived waste, 10,000 Hydrogen that which, with a few percent of the volumes, con- 8,000 Nuclear centrates most of the radioactivity, remains.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization
    Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, May 1988 Seattle University, Seattle, WA Master of Science in Technical Management, May 1997 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Master of Arts in International Science and Technology Policy, May 2009 The George Washington University, Washington, DC A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2020 Dissertation directed by Kathryn Newcomer Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 26, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Dissertation Research Committee: Kathryn Newcomer, Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, Dissertation Director Philippe Bardet, Assistant Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • KERNFORSCHUNGSANLA JULICH Gmbh
    KERNFORSCHUNGSANLA JULICH GmbH Proceedings of the Workshop on Structural Design Criteria for HTR Jiilich, 31. January - 1. February 1989 Editors: G. Breitbach F. Schubert H. Nickel Jiil-Conf-71 April 1989 ISSN 0344-5798 Als Manuskript gedruckt Berichte der Kernforschungsanlage Jülich - Jül-Conf-71 Zu beziehen durch: ZENTRALBIBLIOTHEK der Kernforschungsanlage Jülich GmbH Postfach 1913 • D-5170 Jülich (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) Telefon: 02461/610 • Telex: 833556-0 kf d Proceedings of the Workshop on Structural Design Criteria for HTR Jiilich, 31. January - 1. February 1989 Editors: G. Breitbach F. Schubert H. Nickel Workshop on Structural Design Criteria for HTR Introductural remarks Most of the presentations given in this workshop are based on the German research and development project "HTR Design Criteria" carried out under the sponsorship of the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology. The main emphasis of this work was to acquire the fundamental principles and basic data for the establishment of German KTA-rules (KTA: Nuclear Safety Standards Commission) for the design of HTR-structural components. The project began in 1984 and the research work divided among several working groups and task forces, with participation from several institutions and companies. The role of coordination has been carried out by the Institute for Reactor Materials, Nuclear Research Centre Julien, headed by Prof. Dr. H. Nickel. The work has been organized into four working groups: a) Technical safety boundary conditions; b) Metallic structural components; c) Prestressed concrete pressure vessel; d) Graphitic structural components. The required work in each group was divided between a number of task forces. The membership of each group and task force is given in the appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012/054167 Al
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date _ . 26 April 2012 (26.04.2012) 2012/054167 Al (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agent: SEYMOUR, Michael, J.; Babcock & Wilcox G21C 3/334 (2006.01) G21C 3/32 (2006.01) Nuclear Energy, Inc., Law Dept - Intellectual Property, 20 South Van Buren Avenue, Barberton, OH 44203 (US). (21) International Application Number: PCT/US201 1/052495 (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, (22) International Filing Date: AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BR, BW, BY, BZ, 2 1 September 201 1 (21 .09.201 1) CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, (25) Filing Language: English DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, (26) Publication Language: English KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, (30) Priority Data: ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, 12/909,252 2 1 October 2010 (21 .10.2010) US NO, NZ, OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US): BAB- TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, COCK & WILCOX NUCLEAR ENERGY, INC. [US/ ZM, ZW. US]; 800 Main Street, Lynchburg, VA 24504 (US).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Energy Independence
    Meetings ANS WINTER MEETING Nuclear and energy independence HILE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE canceled or altered conferences in W the wake of the events of Sep- Major themes of the plenary: tember 11, the American Nuclear Society at- tracted more than 1100 attendants to its Win- N ter Meeting in November in Reno, Nev. “In H2 power can be an application light of recent events, that is a remarkable ac- complishment,” ANS President Gail Marcus of nuclear commented during the opening plenary. The large gathering was due perhaps to the upbeat mood of the industry in general, thanks N 50 years since first electricity with EBR-I in part to the Bush administration’s support of the continued use and further deployment of N nuclear power, and because any hope for re- A proposal for a continental supergrid ducing greenhouse gas emissions likely would include nuclear power in a national energy policy. oring the EBR-I and the nuclear pioneers who was associate project director of the EBR-I During the plenary Marcus paraphrased developed it. The proclamation recognized the and project manager for another reactor, the Charles Dickens by saying, “It is the best of environmental benefits of nuclear power and EBR-II. He later became director of the Re- times, it is the worst of times,” in reference feted those who worked to provide the world actor Engineering Division at Argonne Na- to the terrorist attacks on the United States with “clean, sustainable energy for the bene- tional Laboratory before moving on to Illinois and the opportunity for nuclear power to fit of humankind for centuries by making use Power Company.
    [Show full text]
  • HTGR Dust Safety Issues and Needs for Research and Development
    INL/EXT-11-21097 HTGR Dust Safety Issues and Needs for Research and Development P. W. Humrickhouse June 2011 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed 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. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/EXT-11-21097 HTGR Dust Safety Issues and Needs for Research and Development P. W. Humrickhouse June 2011 Idaho National Laboratory Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 http://www.inl.gov Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 ABSTRACT This report presents a summary of high temperature gas-cooled reactor dust safety issues. It draws upon a literature review and the proceedings of the Very High Temperature Reactor Dust Assessment Meeting held in Rockville, MD in March 2011 to identify and prioritize the phenomena and issues that characterize the effect of carbonaceous dust on high temperature reactor safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Technology Safety and Siting
    XA0101477-5/I5* IAEA-TC-389.26 LIMITED DISTRIBUTION REACTOR TECHNOLOGY SAFETY AND SITING REPORT OF A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING ORGANIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND HELD IN DIMITROVGRAD, USSR, 21-23 JUNE 1989 Reproduced by the IAEA Vienna, Austria, 1990 NOTE The material in this document has been supplied by the authors and has not been edited by the IAEA. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the named authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the govern- ments) of the designating Member State(s). In particular, neither the IAEA nor any other organization or body sponsoring this meeting can be held responsible for any material reproduced in this document. FOREWORD On the invitation of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Eleventh International Conference on the HTGR and the IAEA Technical Committee Meeting on Gas-Cooled Reactor Technology, Safety and Siting were held in Dimitrovgrad, USSR, on June 21-23, 1989. The meetings complemented each other. Due to the large worldwide interest, the conference attracted approximately 60 participants from 18 countries and 130 Soviet delegates. About 50 foreign participants and 100 Soviet delegates stayed over for the Technical Committee Meeting. The Technical Committee Meeting provided the Soviet delegates with an opportunity to display the breadth of their program on HTGR's to an international audience. Nearly one-half of the papers were presented by Soviet participants. Among the highlights of the meeting were the following: - The diverse nature and large magnitude of the Soviet research and development program on high temperature gas-cooled reactors.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf 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 AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors
    0 Department of Nuclear Engineering And Radiation Health Physics DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE FOR INNOVATIVE SMALL LIGHT WATER REACTORS. By Alexey I. Soldatov A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University March 9, 2009 1 AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Alexey I. Soldatov for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Nuclear Engineering presented on March 9, 2009. Title: Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors. Abstract approved: Todd S. Palmer In order to address the energy needs of developing countries and remote communities, Oregon State University has proposed the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) design. In order to achieve five years of operation without refueling, use of 8% enriched fuel is necessary. This dissertation is focused on core design issues related with increased fuel enrichment (8.0%) and specific MASLWR operational conditions (such as lower operational pressure and temperature, and increased leakage due to small core). Neutron physics calculations are performed with the commercial nuclear industry tools CASMO-4 and SIMULATE-3, developed by Studsvik Scandpower Inc. The first set of results are generated from infinite lattice level calculations with CASMO-4, and focus on evaluation of the principal differences between standard PWR fuel and MASLWR fuel. Chapter 4-1 covers aspects of fuel isotopic composition changes with burnup, evaluation of kinetic parameters and reactivity coefficients. Chapter 4-2 discusses gadolinium self-shielding and shadowing effects, and subsequent impacts on power generation peaking and Reactor Control System shadowing. 2 The second aspect of the research is dedicated to core design issues, such as reflector design (chapter 4-3), burnable absorber distribution and programmed fuel burnup and fuel use strategy (chapter 4-4).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C October 8, 2014
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C October 8, 2014 APPENDIX C EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METRICS Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C ii October 8, 2014 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C October 8, 2014 iii CONTENTS C. Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ......................................................................................................... 1 C-1. Nuclear Waste Management Criterion ..................................................................................... 1 C-1.1 Background on Nuclear Waste Management .............................................................. 1 C-1.2 Metric Development for the Nuclear Waste Management Criterion .......................... 5 C-1.3 Mass of SNF+HLW Disposed per Energy Generated ................................................ 6 C-1.4 Activity of SNF+HLW (@100 years) per Energy Generated ..................................... 7 C-1.5 Activity of SNF+HLW (@100,000 years) per Energy Generated .............................. 7 C-1.6 Mass of DU+RU+RTh Disposed per Energy Generated ............................................ 8 C-1.7 Volume of LLW per Energy Generated ...................................................................... 9 References for C-1. ........................................................................................................................... 25 C-2. Proliferation Risk Criterion ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The French Approach for the Regulation of Research Reactors
    The French approach for the regulation of research reactors D. Conte, A. Chevallier Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, Paris, France Abstract. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) regulates civil nuclear facilities in France. In addition to the pool of 58 pressurized water reactors ASN also regulates several research reactors which are all unique installations. The regulatory approach for research reactors takes cognisance of the different level of hazard encountered in their operation and hence requires a different approach to the management of safety in comparison with nuclear power reactor operations. For a number of years, ASN has been striving to optimise its regulation of experimental reactors. To ensure the optimum level of safety by focusing on the most important safety issues and allowing the licensee to exercise its full responsibilities through the use of internal authorisations. The internal authorisations system, which has been in operation for several years now with a number of experimental reactors, is designed to achieve this two-fold objective. In addition to the careful use of a new range of tools for its regulatory framework in the research reactors area, ASN has other safety challenges for example the ageing of most of the existing facilities and the licensing of new reactors with a high international profile such as the Jules Horowitz reactor or the ITER fusion reactor. 1. Introduction The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) regulates civil nuclear facilities in France (164). In addition to the pool of 58 pressurized water reactors ASN also regulates research reactors which are all unique installations. Most of the research reactors are operated by the atomic energy commission (CEA).
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of Multiphysics Nuclear Reactor Core Depletion
    SENSITIVITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPHYSICS NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE DEPLETION by Andrew Scott Bielen A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences) in the University of Michigan 2015 Doctoral Committee: Professor Thomas J. Downar , Co-Chair Associate Professor Annalisa Manera, Co-Chair Associate Professor Krzysztof J. Fidkowski Professor John C. Lee Joseph L. Staudenmeier, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission For my wife, Lisa ii AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many that helped and guided me through this Ph.D. process. First and foremost are my co-advisors Prof. Tom Downar and Prof. Annalisa Manera, whose guidance and support were instrumental in the completion of this dissertation. I would also like to thank my committee members, Prof. John Lee and Prof. Krzysztof Fidkowski, and Dr. Joe Staudenmeier of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose feedback on this dissertation was invaluable. Additionally, I thank my branch chief at the NRC, Dr. Chris Hoxie, for his patience, understanding, and support during the completion of this work. In addition to these members, I must also thank the following: Dr. Patrick Raynaud of the US NRC and Ken Geelhood of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, for conversations and guidance on working with and developing the FRAPCON fuel performance code for coupled neutronics and uncertainty analysis was crucial; Dr. Andrew Ward of the University of Michigan, for assisting me with the necessary PARCS/PATHS development and cross section generation using HELIOS; Dr. Tim Drzewiecki of the US NRC for assistance in providing the computer resources required to complete the sensitivity and uncertainty portion of this thesis; and Michael Rose and Thomas Saller at the University of Michigan for supporting me on my visits back to Ann Arbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy and the Three Mile Island Unit Two Accident Lesson Plans and Resource Guide
    Nuclear Energy and the Three Mile Island Unit Two Accident Lesson Plans and Resource Guide © 2009 EFMR Monitoring Group, Inc. 4100 Hillsdale Road, Harrisburg, PA 17112 www.efmr.org 1 Nuclear Energy and the Three Mile Island Unit Two Accident Lesson Plans and Resource Guide © 2009 EFMR Monitoring Group, Inc. 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 www.efmr.org (717)541-1101 Fax (717) 541-5487 Coordinator: Eric Epstein Authors: Diane Little Janna Match Illustrator: Ezra Match 2 Contents Background Information Introduction .........................................................................4 Energy Resources .. ………………………………………...…4 Nuclear Energy ...............……………………………………..5 The TMI Nuclear Reactors …………………………………....5 Nuclear Waste and Environmental Impacts .........................6 The TMI Unit Two Accident …………………………………..7 Elementary Lesson Plans Activity 1: Introduction to Energy …………………………. ...10 Activity 2: A Chain Reaction …....…………………………....11 Activity 3: Steam Turns Turbines ……………………….…....12 Activity 4: Reviewing Fission and Introducing the TMI Unit Two Accident ………………………….....12 Activity 5: Loss of Coolant in the TMI Unit Two Accident ….14 Activity 6: The Effects of the TMI Accident: Facts and Opinions …………….……...…………...15 Middle School Lesson Plans Activity 1: Comparing Energy Resources …………..……….16 Activity 2: Nuclear Reactor Model Demonstration ….............17 Activity 3: Simulating the TMI-2 Accident …………………….19 Activity 4: The Effects of the Accident ……………….….……20 Activity 5: Comparing the TMI-2 Accident to the
    [Show full text]