DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Power in Maryland: Status and Prospects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Power in Maryland: Status and Prospects TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE- LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ........................................................... 1 1.2 U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STATUS ..................................................... 1 1.2.1 National Overview .................................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Current Status in and around Maryland .............................................. 2 1.3 NUCLEAR PLANT CLOSURES AROUND THE U.S. ................................... 5 1.4 CURRENT AND FUTURE ECONOMIC STATUS OF CCNPP AND PBAPS ................................................................................................................. 11 2.0 NUCLEAR ENERGY AS A LOW-CARBON RESOURCE ...................................... 15 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY USE IN MARYLAND ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Climate Change/Carbon Emissions .................................................... 15 2.1.2 Other Air Emissions .............................................................................. 17 2.1.3 Economic Benefits to Maryland of Existing Nuclear Power Plants ....................................................................................................... 19 2.1.4 Other Benefits of Nuclear Power......................................................... 21 2.2 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................. 23 2.2.1 Safety of On-site Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste ......... 24 2.2.2 Waste Confidence Rule ......................................................................... 25 3.0 EMERGING NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES ............................................. 27 3.1 SMALL MODULAR REACTORS ................................................................... 27 3.1.1 Introduction and General Information .............................................. 27 MD PPRP i NUCLEAR POWER IN MARYLAND- JAN 2020 3.1.2 Status of SMR Projects Under Development Worldwide ............ 29 3.1.3 Operating and Deployment Status of SMR Projects ....................... 30 3.1.4 Joint Ventures ......................................................................................... 30 3.1.5 NuScale .................................................................................................... 31 3.2 AP1000 WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR REACTOR ...................................... 34 3.2.1 NRC Approval of the AP1000 Design ................................................. 34 3.2.2 Construction of Four New AP1000 Reactors in China ................ 36 3.2.3 Construction of Four New AP1000 Reactors in the U.S. ................. 37 3.3 TRAVELING WAVE REACTORS ................................................................... 39 3.3.1 Introduction and Background .............................................................. 39 3.3.2 TWR Simplified Concept ...................................................................... 40 3.3.3 Early Generation TWRs ........................................................................ 42 3.3.4 Generation IV TWRs ............................................................................. 42 3.4 POTENTIAL TIME FRAME FOR NEW DEPLOYMENT............................ 44 4.0 NUCLEAR ENERGY DEPLOYMENT IN OTHER STATES AND COUNTRIES . 46 4.1 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE U.S. .................................................................. 46 4.2 POWER SECTOR CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRENDS IN THE U.S. ....................................................................................................................... 47 4.2.1 The Impact of Fossil Fuel Selection on Power Sector Carbon Dioxide Emissions ................................................................................. 47 4.2.2 State-level Trends .................................................................................. 50 4.3 PAIRING NUCLEAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE U.S. ........... 57 4.3.1 State Policy Actions .............................................................................. 57 MD PPRP ii NUCLEAR POWER IN MARYLAND- JAN 2020 4.3.2 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in South Carolina ................................................................................................... 57 4.3.3 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in Illinois 58 4.3.4 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 59 4.4 POWER SECTOR CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRENDS OUTSIDE THE U.S. .............................................................................................................. 60 4.4.1 France ....................................................................................................... 60 4.4.2 Slovakia................................................................................................... 63 4.4.3 Ukraine .................................................................................................... 65 4.4.4 Hungary ................................................................................................... 67 4.5 PAIRING OF NUCLEAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY OUTSIDE THE U.S. ....................................................................................................................... 69 4.5.1 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in France ....................................................................................................... 69 4.5.2 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in Slovakia................................................................................................... 70 4.5.3 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in Ukraine .................................................................................................... 70 4.5.4 Nuclear Operations, Carbon Limits, and Clean Energy in Hungary ................................................................................................... 71 5.0 POTENTIAL STATE INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT EXISTING AND NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ...................................................................................... 72 5.1 STATE ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARDS.............................................. 73 5.1.1 Alter an Existing RPS............................................................................ 74 5.1.2 Clean Energy Standard.......................................................................... 74 5.1.3 Exclude Nuclear Sales from RPS ......................................................... 75 MD PPRP iii NUCLEAR POWER IN MARYLAND- JAN 2020 5.1.4 Experiences with State Energy Portfolio Standards ...................... 75 5.1.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of State Energy Portfolio Standards for Nuclear Power ............................................................... 77 5.2 ZERO EMISSION CREDITS (ZECS) .............................................................. 78 5.2.1 Experiences with ZECs .......................................................................... 78 5.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of ZECs ........................................... 82 5.3 CUSTOMER SURCHARGE ACCOUNTS ...................................................... 84 5.3.1 Experiences with Customer Surcharge Accounts .............................. 84 5.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Customer Surcharge Accounts 85 5.4 STATE PROCUREMENT OF CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ................. 86 5.4.1 Experiences with Procurements ........................................................... 86 5.4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Procurement .............................. 87 5.5 ASSIGNING A COST TO CARBON ............................................................... 88 5.5.1 Cap-and-Trade ....................................................................................... 89 5.5.2 Carbon Tax .............................................................................................. 90 5.5.3 Experiences with Carbon Pricing ........................................................ 90 5.5.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Carbon Pricing ......................... 92 5.6 ADVANCE COST RECOVERY ........................................................................ 94 5.6.1 Experiences with ACR ........................................................................... 94 5.6.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of ACR ............................................ 95 5.7 FEED-IN TARIFFS ............................................................................................. 96 5.7.1 Experiences with FITs ........................................................................... 96 5.7.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of FITs ............................................ 97 MD PPRP iv NUCLEAR POWER IN MARYLAND- JAN 2020 5.8 GRANTS .............................................................................................................. 98 5.8.1 Experiences with Grants ....................................................................... 98 5.8.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Grants ........................................ 99 5.9 LOAN PROGRAMS .......................................................................................... 99 5.9.1 Types of Loan Programs ..................................................................... 100 5.9.2 Experiences with Loan Programs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation with Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: a Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I
    Memo: To: Michael Noble, ME3 From: John Bailey, David Morris, ILSR (Tel: 612-379-3815) Date: 11/15/98 Re: Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation With Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: A Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I. Introduction Electric utilities in Minnesota pay four types of taxes: income tax, franchise fee (or gross receipts tax), sales tax, property tax.1 The total amount paid in each category is shown in Table 1. In 1995, the total came to $375 million. Table 1. Electric Utility Tax Paid in Minnesota in 1995 Property Tax MN Sales Tax MN Income Tax Franchise Fee Total NSP $152,078,365 $65,076,000 $31,709,000 $25,505,000 $274,368,365 Minnesota Power $34,706,493 $5,963,664 $3,843,817 $700,000 $45,213,974 Otter Tail $7,152,715 $4,197,450 $1,370,067 $233,643 $12,953,875 Interstate $3,670,381 $1,935,124 $573,770 $569,969 $6,749,244 Anoka Elec. Coop $3,179,055 $4,658,862 $0 $534,379 $8,372,296 Dakota Elec. Assoc. $4,742,500 $4,487,719 $0 $144,025 $9,374,244 Cooperative Power $7,095,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,095,000 United Power Assoc. $10,827,954 $0 $5,000 $0 $10,832,954 Total $223,452,463 $86,318,819 $37,501,654 $27,687,016 $374,959,952 Source: Minnesota Department of Public Service, 1996 Energy Policy and Conservation Report, December 1996 Recently, Minnesota has re-examined the utility tax structure in light of the restructuring of electricity occurring throughout the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Reactors in California
    Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • NRS 058: Cost of Supply Methodology
    NRS 058(Int):2000 First edition reconfirmed Interim Rationalized User Specification COST OF SUPPLY METHODOLOGY FOR APPLICATION IN THE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY Preferred requirements for applications in the Electricity Distribution Industry N R S NRS 058(Int):2000 2 This Rationalized User Specification is issued by the NRS Project on behalf of the User Group given in the foreword and is not a standard as contemplated in the Standards Act, 1993 (Act 29 of 1993). Rationalized user specifications allow user organizations to define the performance and quality requirements of relevant equipment. Rationalized user specifications may, after a certain application period, be introduced as national standards. Amendments issued since publication Amdt No . Date Text affected Correspondence to be directed to Printed copies obtainable from South African Bureau of Standards South African Bureau of Standards (Electrotechnical Standards) Private Bag X191 Private Bag X191 Pretoria 0001 Pretoria 0001 Telephone: (012) 428-7911 Fax: (012) 344-1568 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.sabs.co.za COPYRIGHT RESERVED Printed on behalf of the NRS Project in the Republic of South Africa by the South African Bureau of Standards 1 Dr Lategan Road, Groenkloof, Pretoria 1 NRS 058(Int):2000 Contents Page Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fusion
    Copyright © 2016 by Gerald Black. Published by The Mars Society with permission NUCLEAR FUSION: THE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY PROBLEM AND TO ADVANCED SPACE PROPULSION Gerald Black Aerospace Engineer (retired, 40+ year career); email: [email protected] Currently Chair of the Ohio Chapter of the Mars Society Presented at Mars Society Annual Convention, Washington DC, September 22, 2016 ABSTRACT Nuclear fusion has long been viewed as a potential solution to the world’s energy needs. However, the government sponsored megaprojects have been floundering. The two multi-billion- dollar flagship programs, the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the National Ignition Facility (NIF), have both experienced years of delays and a several-fold increase in costs. The ITER tokamak design is so large and complex that, even if this approach succeeds, there is doubt that it would be economical. After years of testing at full power, the NIF facility is still far short of achieving its goal of fusion ignition. But hope is not lost. Several private companies have come up with smaller and simpler approaches that show promise. This talk highlights the progress made by one such private company, namely LPPFusion (formerly called Lawrenceville Plasma Physics). LPPFusion is developing focus fusion technology based on the dense plasma focus device and hydrogen-boron 11 fuel. This approach, if it works, would produce a fusion power generator small enough to fit in a truck. This device would produce no radioactivity, there would be no possibility of a meltdown or other safety issues, and it would be more economical than any other source of electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment
    INL/MIS-15-34247 Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment Curtis Wright Symposium xx/xx/xxxx www.inl.gov INL SMR Activities • INL works with all vendors to provide fair access to the laboratory benefits • INL works with industry on SMR technology and deployment • INL is supporting multiple LWR SMR vendors – Small, <300MWe reactors and less expensive reactors compared to current LWR reactors (Small) – Often, but not always, multiple reactors at the same site that can be deployed as power is needed (Modular) – Primary cooling system and reactor core in a single containment structure, but not always (Reactors) – Factory built, usually, which improves quality and costs • Integrated PWR SMR’s are closest to deployment – designed to be inherently safer and simple – primary reactor system inside a single factory built containment vessel – Higher dependence on passive systems to simplify operation and design Reactor Power Nuclear Plant Power Los Angeles Class Submarine -26 MW 5000 Enterprise Class Aircraft Carrier 8x 4000 Unit Power Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier 2x97MW, 194MW 3000 Plant Power NuScale Reactor 12 x 150MW, 1800MW 2000 Cooper BWR, 1743MW PowerThermal MW 1000 Westinghouse AP-1000, 3000MW 0 European Pressurized Reactor, 4953MW SMRs are Smaller VC Summer • Power less than 300MWe. Dearater – Current Plants 1000MWe – Physically smaller – Fewer inputs – Fits on power grid with less infrastructure – Built in a factory – Simplified designs VC Summer • Passive systems Core • Fewer components NuScale Reactor Multiple Units • SMR Nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Physics: Science, Technology and Applications
    Prof. Kim Molvig April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DDD-T--TT FusionFusion D +T → α + n +17.6 MeV 3.5MeV 14.1MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Highest specific energy of ALL nuclear reactions – Lowest temperature for sizeable reaction rate • What is BAD about this reaction? – NEUTRONS => activation of confining vessel and resultant radioactivity – Neutron energy must be thermally converted (inefficiently) to electricity – Deuterium must be separated from seawater – Tritium must be bred April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ConsiderConsider AnotherAnother NuclearNuclear ReactionReaction p+11B → 3α + 8.7 MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Aneutronic (No neutrons => no radioactivity!) – Direct electrical conversion of output energy (reactants all charged particles) – Fuels ubiquitous in nature • What is BAD about this reaction? – High Temperatures required (why?) – Difficulty of confinement (technology immature relative to Tokamaks) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DTDT FusionFusion –– VisualVisualVisual PicturePicture Figure by MIT OCW. April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) EnergeticsEnergetics ofofof FusionFusion e2 V ≅ ≅ 400 KeV Coul R + R V D T QM “tunneling” required . Ekin r Empirical fit to data 2 −VNuc ≅ −50 MeV −2 A1 = 45.95, A2 = 50200, A3 =1.368×10 , A4 =1.076, A5 = 409 Coefficients for DT (E in KeV, σ in barns) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) TunnelingTunneling FusionFusion CrossCross SectionSection andand ReactivityReactivity Gamow factor . Compare to DT . April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ReactivityReactivity forfor DTDT FuelFuel 8 ] 6 c e s / 3 m c 6 1 - 0 4 1 x [ ) ν σ ( 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 T1 (KeV) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) Figure by MIT OCW.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergy's Role in Balancing the Electricity Grid and Providing Storage Options – an EU Perspective
    Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Front cover information panel IEA Bioenergy: Task 41P6: 2017: 01 Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Antti Arasto, David Chiaramonti, Juha Kiviluoma, Eric van den Heuvel, Lars Waldheim, Kyriakos Maniatis, Kai Sipilä Copyright © 2017 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved Published by IEA Bioenergy IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Foreword The global energy supply system is currently in transition from one that relies on polluting and depleting inputs to a system that relies on non-polluting and non-depleting inputs that are dominantly abundant and intermittent. Optimising the stability and cost-effectiveness of such a future system requires seamless integration and control of various energy inputs. The role of energy supply management is therefore expected to increase in the future to ensure that customers will continue to receive the desired quality of energy at the required time. The COP21 Paris Agreement gives momentum to renewables. The IPCC has reported that with current GHG emissions it will take 5 years before the carbon budget is used for +1,5C and 20 years for +2C. The IEA has recently published the Medium- Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2016, launched on 25.10.2016 in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Handbook 2020
    MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK 2020 Energy Northwest may revise or discontinue policies, procedures, or benefits described in this handbook, and/or institute new policies, procedures, or benefits. This handbook nor any other Energy Northwest policies, procedures, or practices (whether verbal or written) or the acceptance or continuance of employment are to be construed as a contract of employment, a promise of continued employment, or as creating an implied or contractual duty between an employee and Energy Northwest. All employment may be terminated "at will” by Energy Northwest or the employee for lawful reasons. Management Handbook 2020 Introduction Congratulations and welcome to Energy Northwest’s leadership team! You are part of a group of highly skilled professionals focused each day on the relentless pursuit of excellence through continuous improvement. This ensures we provide our public power members and regional ratepayers with safe, reliable, cost-effective, responsible power generation and energy solutions. I want to personally thank you for stepping up to the challenge of leadership on our management team. It’s a very important position to our agency, and to the people you lead. This handbook gives you the guidelines and resources to manage and direct your staff to help them accomplish individual and agency goals. It contains much of the information you will need to be successful in your leadership role here at Energy Northwest; it describes the many important programs, processes and resources available to you. The handbook also lists key expectations for supervisors and managers. I encourage you to use this handbook often as you get started in management, and keep it as a reference throughout your career with the agency.
    [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]
  • Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector
    The Distributed Utility Concept: Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector Steven Letendre, John Byrne, and Young-Doo Wang, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware The U.S. electric utility sector is entering an uncertain period as pressure mounts to cut costs and minimize environmental impacts. Many analysts believe that exposing the industry to competition is the key to reducing costs. Most restructuring proposals acknowledge the need to maintain environmental quality and suggest mechanisms for assuring continued support for end-use efficiency and renewable energy in a deregulated electric utility industry. Two of the most prominent ideas are non-bypassable line charges and portfolio standards. This paper suggests another option based on the distributed utility (DU) concept in which net metering and a form of performance-based ratemaking allow distributed generation, storage, and DSM to play an important role in a new competitive electric utility sector. A DU option directly incorporates these resources into the electric system by explicitly acknowledging their value in deferring distribution equipment upgrades. INTRODUCTION electric utility industry. In our view, the DU option has been neglected in the current debate. The electric utility sector in the U.S. is on the verge of A DU strategy involves a fundamental shift in the way fundamental change as regulators, policymakers, and indus- electricity is delivered, with a move away from large-scale try officials seek a strategy for introducing competition into central generation to distributed small-scale generation and the industry. The move toward competition is driven by the storage, and targeted demand-side management. To date, belief that significant efficiency gains could be realized by the DU concept has mainly been analyzed in terms of its exposing the industry to market forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Assessment for the Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal January 2017 I
    DOE/EA-2044 Assessment Energy Northwest WNP-1/4 Lease Renewal, Hanford Site, Washington January 2017 U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Richland, WA 99352 Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited U.S. Department of Energy DOE/EA-2044 Terms Used in this Document Area of Potential Effect (APE) – the geographic area within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Standard activities, operating procedures, and practices that are used to prevent or reduce potential environmental impacts from project activities. Cultural Resources - A general term used to refer to a wide range of resources, including historic structures, archaeological sites, places of traditional, religious and cultural significance, sacred sites, Native American human remains, and associated objects that are entitled to special consideration under federal statute, regulations, and executive orders. Energy Northwest (EN) – the municipal corporation and joint operating agency that owns both the Industrial Development Complex (IDC) and the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Federal Threatened or Endangered Species - Plant or animal species that are at risk of becoming endangered in the near future throughout all or a significant part of their range. Threatened or endangered status is formally designated by a listing process under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Industrial Development Complex (IDC) – the collective name applied to the area occupied by Washington Nuclear Projects Number 1 and Number 4 (WNP-1/4) that reflects the current industrial nature of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Retarding Field Analyzer (RFA) for Use on EAST
    Magnetic Confinement Fusion C. Xiao and STOR-M team Plasma Physics Laboratory University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada \ Outline Magnetic Confinement scheme Progress in the world Tokamak Research at the University of Saskatchewan 2 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Magnetic Confinement Scheme 3 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Charged particle motion in straight magnetic field A charged particle circulates around the magnetic field lines (e.g., produced in a solenoid) Cross-field motion is restricted within Larmor radius 푚푣 푟 = 퐿 푞퐵 Motion along the field lines is still free End loss to the chamber wall Chamber Wall 4 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Toriodal geometry is the solution However, plasma in simple toroidal field drifts to outboard on the wall 5 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Tokamak Bend solenoid to form closed magnetic field lines circular field line without ends no end-loss. Transformer action produces a huge current in the chamber Generate poloidal field Heats the plasma Tokamak: abbreviation of Russian words for toroidal magnetic chamber 6 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Stellarator • The magnetic field are generated by complicated external coils • No plasma current, no disruptions • Engineering is challenge 7 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Wendelstein 7-X, Greifswald, Germany • Completed in October 2015 • Superconducting coils • High density and high temperature have been achieved 8 CNS-2019 Fusion Session, June 24, 2019 Reversed Field Pinch • Toroidal field reverses direction at the edge • The magnetic field are generated by current in plasma • Toroidal filed and poloidal field are of similar strength.
    [Show full text]