DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Technical Feasibility of Fusion Energy to the Special Committee for the ITER Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Technical Feasibility of Fusion Energy to the Special Committee for the ITER Project March 8, ASDEX Upgrade Seminar Report on Technical Feasibility of Fusion Energy to the Special Committee for the ITER Project M. Kikuchi Former member of subcommittee for Fusion Development Strategy under Fusion Council Structure of Fusion Program Promotion in Japan (before May 17,2000) Special committee for the ITER Project Chair: Prof. H. Yoshikawa Atomic Energy Fusion ITER/EDA Technical Commission Council Subcommittee Chair: Prof. N. Inoue Chair: Prof. M. Wakatani Planning and Promotion Subcommittee Chair: Prof. K. Miya Subcommittee for Fusion Development Strategy Chair: Prof. N. Inoue 1 Charge to Subcommittee for Fusion Development Strategy (3) Technical feasibility of the fusion energy (4) Extension of the program and basic supporting research For topic (3) above, the Special Committee additionally requested an evaluation of the feasibility of fusion energy as a safe and reliable energy source from the aspects of technical potential, management capability, and characteristics of Japanese industrial structure. Two other subcommittes are formed for answering (1) Survey of long term demand and supply of energy sources (2) Feasibility study of alternative energy sources (5) Distribution of resources for research (6) International relations. 2 Members of Subcommittee for Fusion Development Strategy (April 2000) Nobuyuki Inoue (Chairman) Chairman of Fusion Council Professor, Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University) Katsunori Abe Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University Kunihiko Okano Research Fellow, Komae Research Laboratory, Nuclear Energy Systems Department, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Yuichi Ogawa Professor, High Temperature Plasma Center, University of Tokyo Mitsuru Kikuchi General Manager, Tokamak Program Division, Department of Fusion Plasma Research, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Shigetada Kobayashi Chairman of the Committee on Nuclear Fusion Research & Development, Nuclear industry Executive Committee, Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association (Senior Manager, Advanced Energy Design & Engineering Department, Power Systems & Services Company, Toshiba Corporation) Satoru Tanaka Professor, Department of Quantum Engineering and Systems Science, Graduate School of Engineering, University of Tokyo Yoshiaki Hirotani Manager, Department of Project Planning and Promotion, Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc) Masami Fujiwara Director-General, National Institute of Fusion Science Shinzaburo Matsuda Director General, Naka Fusion Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Kenzo Miya Chairman of Planning and Promotion Subcommittee under Fusion Council (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, University of Tokyo) 3 Chapter 1 Future Prospects of the Fusion Energy 1.1 Situations in the 21st century 1.2 Criteria for commercialization 1.3 Comparison with other power sources 1.3.1 Resources (fusion, fission, fossil) 1.3.2 CO2 Emissions and Sustainability of Atmosphere 1.3.3 Safety viewed from Biological Hazard Potential 1.3.4 Radioactive Waste and Environmental Adaptability 1.3.5 Plant Characteristics 1.3.6 Economical Efficiency 1.3.7 Use of Fusion other than Electricity 1.4 Overall Assessment 4 Resources required for Fusion Reactor (SSTR is adopted as a reference design) Resource life : Assuming present-level world electricity is produced by 1500 SSTR Deuterium : almost limitless ; 144ppm in fresh water Lithium : 1.5million years ; 233Gtons in sea-water Beryllium : 70,000 years ; 100Mtons (gross mineral resources) Niobium : 70,000 years ; 700Mtons (gross mineral resources) Center Solenoid Coil (7T,NbTi) Upper Maintenance Port TF Coil Design Value (16.5T,(NbTi)3Sn) Blankets Plasma Current Ip 12MA (Pressurized Water Cooling Breeder) Toroidal Field Coil Bt 9T Ring PF Coil (5.5T,NbTi) Major Radius R 7m Inter-coil Structure Aspect Ratio A 4.1 Vacuum Chamber Elongation k95 1.85 Negative NBI Port Normalized Beta bN 3.5 (2Mev,80MW) Fusion Output PF 3GW Divertor Maintenance Port Current Drive Power PCD 60MW Divertor Permanent Blanket Net Electric Output Power PE 1.08GW Vacuum Port Fusion Gain Q 50 5(m) Torus Sport 2 TF Coil Support Structure Averaged Neutron Wall Load Pneut. 3MW/m 5(m) 5(m) Concrete Cryostat 0 Bird's-eye view of SSTR 5 Uranium Resources 45º Uranium is virtually inexhaustible since Uranium 40º Japan Sea extraction from sea-water is technically ready. Concentration 3.3ppb 35º Resource in sea water 46x108tons Annual consumption 6.14x104tons 30º Resource life 75,000 years Pacific Ocean 130º 135º 140º 145º Collection Unit Vanadium (V2O5) Uranium (Yellow Cake) 6 Fossil Resources ( Reserves and Resource Base ) Energy Present Saturation at 12 billion persons assumed (1.67 TOE /person) 180 Nuclear/ Coal Renewable Demand of Fossil Energy Oil/Natural gas (assumed 90% of total demand) Oil + Natural Gas 150 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000(Year) Shortage due to Reserves Resource life $10~15/bbl Past Future 100 (Coal) For reserve Coal ; 231years ~$30/bbl (Oil) Shortage due to the Restriction of Nat.Gas ; 63years Coal Use Oil Oil ; 44years 50 $15 ~30/bbl For resource base (Coal) Coal Nat.Gas ; 452years $30/bbl~ (Gas) Oil ; 242years 0 1900 1950 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Year 6 CO2 Emission Rate Fusion is environmentally attractive with its low CO2 emission rate. 300 270 200 200 178 (Fuel) 100 (Fuel) 85 81 (Fuel) (Fuel) (Fuel) 33.733.7 34.334.3 16 6-12 12 40 46 4.8 5.7 0 24 31 7 Radiological Toxic Hazard Potential Present large scale energy sources such as fossil plants and LWR have large risks such as Global Warming and Radiological Hazard. Fusion simultaneously reduces both risks. Coal-fired power plant CO2 emission is less than 1/10. • Radiological toxic hazard potential of T is less than 1/1000 of that of I-131. Light water Fusion reactor reactor I-131 power plant power plant in 3GW LWR 4.5kg of T Latent risk of the radiation exposure 8 Long Term Waste Hazard Potential Radiological toxic hazard potential of fusion plant is much smaller than fission and even lower than coal ash (Th-232,U-238) 15 1020 10 13 1018 10 11 1016 10 14 109 10 Light water reactor Light water reactor Fusion reactor (SSTR) Fusion reactor (SSTR) Coal-fired power Coal-fired power 12 107 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 106 10 10 10 10 10 10 Ye ar Y e a r 9 Waste Management Disposal cost is smaller than that for LWR spent fuel management. 10 8 10 7 10 6 Burn-up ashes 10 5 from the coal- fired plant 10 4 Fusion reactor Boiling water reactor 1000 High-level radioactive waste High bg waste Low-level radioactive waste Total Fission reactor 90 billion yen 3.84 billion yen 11.7 billion yen 10.554 billion yen with 1GW electricity / 180 m3 / 1600 m3 / 9750 m3 Fusion reactor(SSTR, - 6 billion yen 30.12 billion yen 36.12 billion yen 1.08 GW electricity) / 2500 m3 / 25100 m3 Used disposal unit prices are low-level waste (¥ 1200000/m3), high bg waste (¥ 2400000/ m3) and high-level radioactive waste (five hundred million yen/ m3) 10 Economical Efficiency 1) If fusionpower plants are forced to becompetitive only for the COE issue, a COEn of 0.5~0.7must be realized in future. 2) If fusion COEn will be much more than 1.5, fusion will be noncompetitive. Even if fission plants will be unavailable for one reason or other, the fossil power plants with CO2 sequestration systems will need lower cost than the fusion plants. Furthermore, the cost of CO2 sequestration will be reduced in future. Normalized cost of electricity (COEn) 104 yen/kW 0 1.0 2.0 500 Upper value Power plants now in use Lower value (Thermal power, Photovoltaic power 10000 Ocean thermal power Hydropower, system for utility application Nuclear power) 2 GWe A 100 B Target of [Table1.3.6.2-1] Future prediction SSTR 8000 50 Wind power plant [1.3.6.2-3] Future prediction Geothermal Electricity power energy Target region of 6000 1 GWe 10 fusion power LNG-fired power plant Target of C [Table1.3.6.2-1] with CO2 sequestration 5 A-SSTR[1.3.6.2-4] Target of Coal-fired power plant 4000 CREST[1.3.6.2.-2] with CO2 sequestration A-BWR (Kashiwazaki Unit 6, Unit 7) A-BWR 1 2000 (Fukushima Power Plant I Unit 7, Unit 8), 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 future plan Normalized COE (COEn) 0 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 Unit cost of construction (x 10 kyen/kW) Target for Commercial Use COE : designed value of 10yen/kWh or less 15yen/kWh as upper limit Stability : less than 1% Forced outage : 0.5/unit year ( including disruption-induced outage) Load-following : at least partial load operation in case of emergency Site requirement : near high demand area if possible Generation capacity : <2GW/unit Capacity factor : ideal design value of 85%, initial target 70% 12 Overall Assessment Fusion can be a balanced energy source CO2 reduction effect Fusion Reactor (inverse emission unit) 1000 100 Target for demo reactor 10 Target for commercial reactor 1 0.1 Economy Safety laxity 0.01 inverse movable BHP Inverse COEn 1.5 1.0 0.001 in reactor (linear scale) 0.5 Virtually unlimited Fuel resource R/P ratio Radiological Risk of waste BHP 20 year after decommissioning CO2 reduction effect Coal thermal plant (inverse emission unit) CO2 reduction effect with CO2 1000 LWR with sea water (inverse emission unit) sequestration 100 uranium 1000 10 100 1 Based on values for LWRs 10 0.1 1 Economy Safety laxity Based on values for ABWRs Inverse COEn 0.01 0.1 1.5 1.0 inverse movable BHP Economy Safety laxity 0.001 in reactor Inverse COEn 0.01 (linear scale) 0.5 1.5 inverse movable BHP 1.0 0.001 (linear scale) in reactor 0.5 Fuel resource Virtually unlimited R/P ratio Radiological Risk of waste Radiological
Load more

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Self-Sustaining Thorium Boiling Water Reactors
    Project No. 11-3023 Self-Sustaining Thorium Boiling Water Reactors Reactor Concepts Dr. Ehud Greenspan University of California-Berkeley In collaboration with: Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Michigan Brookhaven National Laboratory Brian Robinson, Federal POC Temitope Taiwo, Technical POC NEUP Project # 11-3023 September 2011 to December 2014 Self-sustaining thorium boiling water reactors Summary Report Ehud Greenspan, Phillip M. Gorman, Sandra Bogetic, Jeffrey E. Seifried, Guanheng Zhang, Christopher R. Varela, Massimiliano Fratoni and Jasmina L. Vujic UC Berkeley, [email protected] Thomas Downar, Andrew Hall, Andrew Ward, Michael Jarrett, Aaron Wysocki and Yunlin Xu University of Michigan, [email protected] Mujid Kazimi, Koroush Shirvan and Alexander Mieloszyk MIT, [email protected] Michael Todosow, Nicholas Brown and Lap Cheng BNL, [email protected] 28 February 2015 1 Table of Contents Overview Page Executive summary 3 1. Introduction 7 2. The RBWR cores 7 2.1 Hitachi RBWR cores 7 2.2 Independent evaluation of the Hitachi designs 14 2.3 The incentive for thorium-based RBWR 15 2.4 The thorium-based RBWR core designs 17 3. Development of computational methods for RBWR type cores 19 3.1 3-D core simulator 20 3.2 Monte-Carlo based coupled neutronics - TH - depletion analysis capability 21 3.3 Stability and safety analysis capability 21 3.4 Fuel performance analysis capability 22 3.5 Thermal hydraulic correlations for tight lattice high void cores 24 4. Feasibility of fuel-self-sustaining RBWR-Th cores 24 4.1 Study strategy 24 4.2 RBWR-Th core designs 26 4.3 RBWR-Th safety and stability 30 4.4 RBWR-Th fuel performance 31 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Nuclear Energy 105 (2018) 83–98
    Progress in Nuclear Energy 105 (2018) 83–98 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Progress in Nuclear Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene Technology perspectives from 1950 to 2100 and policy implications for the T global nuclear power industry Victor Nian Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: There have been two completed phases of developments in nuclear reactor technologies. The first phase is the Nuclear industry trends demonstration of exploratory Generation I reactors. The second phase is the rapid scale-up of Generation II Nuclear energy policy reactors in North America and Western Europe followed by East Asia. We are in the third phase, which is the ff Technology di usion construction of evolutionary Generation III/III+ reactors. Driven by the need for safer and more affordable New user state nuclear reactors post-Fukushima, the nuclear industry has, in parallel, entered the fourth phase, which is the International cooperation development of innovative Generation IV reactors. Through a comprehensive review of the historical reactor Advanced reactor development technology developments in major nuclear states, namely, USA, Russia, France, Japan, South Korea, and China, this study presents a projection on the future potentials of advanced reactor technologies, with particular focus on pressurized water reactors, high temperature reactors, and fast reactors, by 2100. The projected potentials provide alternative scenarios to develop insights that complement the established technology roadmaps. Findings suggest that there is no clear winner among these technologies, but fast reactors could demonstrate a new and important decision factor for emerging markets. Findings also suggest small modular reactors, espe- cially those belonging to Generation IV, as a transitional technology for developing domestic market and in- digenous technology competence for emerging nuclear states.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Sustaining Thorium Boiling Water Reactors
    Project No. 11-3023 Self-Sustaining Thorium Boiling Water Reactors Reactor Concepts Dr. Ehud Greenspan University of California-Berkeley In collaboraon with: Massachuses Instute of Technology University of Michigan Brookhaven Naonal Laboratory Brian Robinson, Federal POC Temitope Taiwo, Technical POC NEUP Project # 11-3023 September 2011 to December 2014 Self-sustaining thorium boiling water reactors Summary Report Ehud Greenspan, Phillip M. Gorman, Sandra Bogetic, Jeffrey E. Seifried, Guanheng Zhang, Christopher R. Varela, Massimiliano Fratoni and Jasmina L. Vujic UC Berkeley, [email protected] Thomas Downar, Andrew Hall, Andrew Ward, Michael Jarrett, Aaron Wysocki and Yunlin Xu University of Michigan, [email protected] Mujid Kazimi, Koroush Shirvan and Alexander Mieloszyk MIT, [email protected] Michael Todosow, Nicholas Brown and Lap Cheng BNL, [email protected] 28 February 2015 1 Table of Contents Overview Page Executive summary 3 1. Introduction 7 2. The RBWR cores 7 2.1 Hitachi RBWR cores 7 2.2 Independent evaluation of the Hitachi designs 14 2.3 The incentive for thorium-based RBWR 15 2.4 The thorium-based RBWR core designs 17 3. Development of computational methods for RBWR type cores 19 3.1 3-D core simulator 20 3.2 Monte-Carlo based coupled neutronics – TH – depletion analysis capability 21 3.3 Stability and safety analysis capability 21 3.4 Fuel performance analysis capability 22 3.5 Thermal hydraulic correlations for tight lattice high void cores 24 4. Feasibility of fuel-self-sustaining RBWR-Th cores 24 4.1 Study strategy 24 4.2 RBWR-Th core designs 26 4.3 RBWR-Th safety and stability 30 4.4 RBWR-Th fuel performance 31 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • VVER-1000 Coolant Transient Benchmark
    Nuclear Science NEA/NSC/DOC(2002)6 VVER-1000 Coolant Transient Benchmark PHASE 1 (V1000CT-1) Vol. I: Main Coolant Pump (MCP) switching On – Final Specifications Boyan Ivanov and Kostadin Ivanov Nuclear Engineering Program, USA Pavlin Groudev and Malinka Pavlova INRNE, Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria Vasil Hadjiev Nuclear Power Plant Kozloduy, Bulgaria US Department of Energy NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3: Nuclear Reactors/Energy Generation
    Unit 3: Nuclear Reactors/Energy Generation Time: Three hours Objectives A. Teacher: 1. To ensure students understand how nuclear energy is generated. 2. To help students learn how a nuclear power plant works. 3. To understand how the NRC regulates commercial nuclear energy. B. At the conclusion of this unit the student should be able to — 1. Describe the fission process. 2. Identify the various kinds of nuclear power plants. 3. Discuss the process of energy generation with nuclear power plants. Investigation and Building Background 1. Introduce term: Students have little knowledge of nuclear reactors and limited understanding of the terminology used in nuclear power plants. Definitions found in dictionaries tend to be vague regarding this specialized language. 2. Resources: 1. Nuclear Power for Energy Generation "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Workshop Manual, U.S. NRC 2. The Fission Process and Heat Production "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Workshop Manual, U.S. NRC 3. Boiling-Water Reactor Systems "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Workshop Manual, U.S. NRC 4. Pressurized-Water Reactor Systems "Nuclear Reactor Concepts" Workshop Manual, U.S. NRC 3. Generalizing: The purpose of a nuclear power plant is to produce or release heat and boil water. It is designed to produce electricity. It should be noted that while there are significant differences, there are many similarities between nuclear power plants and other electrical generating facilities. Uranium is used for fuel in nuclear power plants to make electricity. a. Vocabulary: Nuclear Power Plants boiling water reactor (BWR) helium pressurized water reactor (PWR) uranium dioxide uranium-235 uranium-238 sodium Questions 1. Is there a nuclear power plant near where you live? What type is it? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The SWR 1000: a Nuclear Power Plant Concept with Boiling Water Reactor for Maximum Safety and Economy of Operation
    FR0200669 The SWR 1000: A Nuclear Power Plant Concept with Boiling Water Reactor for Maximum Safety and Economy of Operation W. BRETTSCHUH Siemens Nuclear Power GmbH, Offenbach, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Key Words: SWR 1000 - Safety - Economy Introduction Although the construction of new nuclear power plants has been stagnating for some time now, reactor vendors all over the world have nevertheless been working on fur- ther developing their reactor design concepts. What is the motivation behind these development efforts? The answer is: a conviction that the growing demand for elec- tricity both in the industrialized nations and, above all, in countries that are on the threshold of industrialization - due to their dramatically expanding populations - will only be able to be met if nuclear power plants are used for base-load power genera- tion. Nuclear power is the only environmentally friendly and economically efficient alternative in the long term, for any corresponding increase in the number of fossil- fired power plants would have a catastrophic impact on our environment by produc- ing more greenhouse gases. Renewable energy sources that do not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) are all - with the exception of hydropower - uneconomical, and are also unpredictable as far as their generating capacities are concerned since they are heavily dependent on local weather conditions. Renewable energy sources that are "CO2-neutral" will in no way be capable of providing the amount of power that is needed. Since power generation from nuclear fusion will probably take another few decades to reach maturity, it is a widely acknowledged fact that nuclear power will experience a renaissance; the first signs of this are already to be seen in the USA where operating licenses for some nuclear plants have now been extended to up to 60 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Boiling Water Reactor (Bwr)
    FUNDAMENTALS OF BOILING In this light a general description of BWR is presented, with emphasis on the reactor physics aspects (first lecture), and a survey of methods applied in fuel WATER REACTOR (BWR) and core design and operation is presented in order to indicate the main features of the calculation^ tools (second lecture). The third and fourth lectures are devoted to a review of BWR design bases, S. BOZZOLA reactivity requirements, reactivity and power control, fuel loading patternc. Moreover, operating 'innts are reviewed, as the actual limits during power AMN Ansaldo Impianti, operation and constraints for reactor physics analyses (design and operation). Genoa, The basic elements of core management are also presented. The constraints on control rod movements during the achieving of criticality Italy and low power operation are illustrated in the fifth lecture. The banked position withdrawal sequence mode of operation is indeed an example of safety and design/operation combined approach. Some considerations on plant transient analyses are also presented in the fifth lecture, in order to show the impact Abstract between core and fuel performance and plant/system performance. The last (sixth) lecture is devoted to the open vessel testing during the These lectures on fundamentals of BWR reactor physics are a synthesis startup of a commercial BWR. A control .od calibration is also illustrated. of known and established concepts. These lecture are intended to be a comprehensive (even though descriptive in nature) presentation, which would give the basis for a fair understanding of power operation, fuel cycle and safety aspects of the boiling water reactor. The fundamentals of BWR reactor physics are oriented to design and operation.
    [Show full text]