DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Specification for a Small Integral Pressurised Water Reactor Basic Principles Simulator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IAEA Specification Rev. 0 Small Integral PWR Basic Principles Simulator Dated 20 May 2015 Technical Specification for a Small Integral Pressurised Water Reactor Basic Principles Simulator Nuclear Power Technology Development Section (NPTDS) Page 1 of 95 IAEA Specification Rev. 0 Small Integral PWR Basic Principles Simulator Dated 20 May 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The IAEA maintains a suite of basic principles simulators for nuclear power plants that are used for educational purposes. Upon request, these are freely distributed to its Member States and used on personal computers to aid in the understanding of reactor plant fundamentals, operational characteristics, and various approaches to reactor designs. There is continuing growth in global interest in the development of small modular reactor (SMR) designs and technologies. One variety of reactors that is being developed in several countries is the small integral pressurised water reactor (iPWR). In this design, primary circuit components are located within the reactor pressure vessel, eliminating the need for primary circuit pipework, with the intention of enhancing safety and reliability. In order to continue to support the interests of its Member States, the IAEA would like to add a basic principles simulator (hereinafter referred to as “the Simulator”) describing the basic operation of an iPWR to its suite of simulators. This document proposes a plant design as the basis for the Simulator. This design is specified so as to best represent typical designs of iPWR whilst using publically available information. This document then specifies functional and design requirements for the Simulator before detailing other requirements associated with its supply, including documentation, after sales support and warranties. Several options for the supply of the Simulator are presented in Chapter 6 – a base option and several augmented features. The Contractor is invited to submit tender documentation to the IAEA with a quote for the supply of each option. The Contractor may submit a proposal for an existing product that is similar to what is being specified. In this case the proposal shall identify and highlight the differences between what is being offered and what has been specified. Page 2 of 90 IAEA Specification Rev. 0 Small Integral PWR Basic Principles Simulator Dated 20 May 2015 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2 CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2. SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.1. Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.2. Overview ............................................................................................................................... 8 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE iPWR REACTOR .................................................................................. 9 2.1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2. REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL ............................................................................................. 13 2.3. PRESSURE CONTROL ............................................................................................................ 15 2.4. SECONDARY SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 15 2.5. CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................... 16 2.6. REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 18 2.7. EMERGENCY CORE AND CONTAINMENT COOLING SYSTEMS .................................. 18 3. SIMULATOR FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 22 3.1. SYSTEM BREAKDOWN OF REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 22 3.1.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.1.2. Reactor core ......................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.3. Reactor Coolant ................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.4. Steam & Feedwater ............................................................................................................. 25 3.1.5. Turbine and Generator ......................................................................................................... 26 3.1.6. Condensate cooling ............................................................................................................. 26 3.1.7. Containment ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.1.8. Protection Systems .............................................................................................................. 27 3.2. PLANT CONTROL AND PROTECTION SYSTEMS ............................................................. 27 3.3. OPERATING SITUATIONS ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4. MALFUNCTIONS AND ACCIDENTS .................................................................................... 30 4. SIMULATOR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................ 32 4.1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 32 4.2. INTERFACE .............................................................................................................................. 32 Page 3 of 90 IAEA Specification Rev. 0 Small Integral PWR Basic Principles Simulator Dated 20 May 2015 4.3. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................... 41 4.4. HARDWARE ............................................................................................................................. 42 4.5. SIMULATION CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 42 4.5.1. Initiation .............................................................................................................................. 42 4.5.2. Initial Conditions ................................................................................................................. 42 4.5.3. Simulation Time .................................................................................................................. 42 4.5.4. Snapshot .............................................................................................................................. 43 4.5.5. Backtrack and Replay .......................................................................................................... 43 4.5.6. Manual Parameter Variation................................................................................................ 43 4.5.7. Malfunctions ........................................................................................................................ 43 4.5.8. Plant Configuration Variations (Optional Requirement) ..................................................... 44 5. OTHER REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 45 5.1. DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 45 5.1.1. Minimum Content of User Manual ..................................................................................... 45 5.2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 46 5.3. SCOPE OF SUPPLY .................................................................................................................. 46 5.4. QUALITY ASSURANCE ......................................................................................................... 46 5.5. WARRANTY AND SOFTWARE UPGRADES ....................................................................... 47 5.6. AFTER SALES SUPPORT ........................................................................................................ 47 6. OPTIONS FOR TENDER ............................................................................................................. 48 7. MATHEMATICAL MODELS ..................................................................................................... 49 7.1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 49 7.2. REACTOR CORE .....................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment

    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
  • Molten Salts As Blanket Fluids in Controlled Fusion Reactors [Disc 6]

    Molten Salts As Blanket Fluids in Controlled Fusion Reactors [Disc 6]

    r1 0 R N L-TM-4047 MOLTEN SALTS AS BLANKET FLUIDS IN CONTROLLED FUSION REACTORS W. R. Grimes Stanley Cantor .:, .:, .- t. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. om-TM- 4047 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 REACTOR CHENISTRY DIVISION MOLTEN SALTS AS BLANKET FLUIDS IN CONTROLLED FUSION REACTORS W. R. Grimes and Stanley Cantor DECEMBER 1972 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the 1J.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com- pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. i iii CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................. 1 Introduction ........................... 2 Behavior of Li2BeFq in a Eypothetical CTR ............3 Effects of Strong Magnetic Fields .............5 Effects on Chemical Stability .............5 Effects on Fluid Dynamics ...............7 Production of Tritium ..................
  • Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety. Proceedings of the Specialists` Meeting

    Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety. Proceedings of the Specialists` Meeting

    J — v ft INIS-mf—15B1 7 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIALISTS’ MEETING JOINTLY ORGANISED BY THE IAEA AND NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. AND HELD IN GLOUCESTER, UK 14-17 MAY 1996 NUCLEAR ELECTRIC Ltd. 1996 VOL INTRODUCTION The Specialists ’ Meeting on Monitoring and Diagnosis Systems to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Reliability and Safety, held in Gloucester, UK, 14 - 17 May 1996, was organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of the International Working Group on Nuclear Power Plant Control and Instrumentation (IWG-NPPCI) and the International Task Force on NPP Diagnostics in co-operation with Nuclear Electric Ltd. The 50 participants, representing 21 Member States (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, UK and USA), reviewed the current approaches in Member States in the area of monitoring and diagnosis systems. The Meeting attempted to identify advanced techniques in the field of diagnostics of electrical and mechanical components for safety and operation improvements, reviewed actual practices and experiences related to the application of those systems with special emphasis on real occurrences, exchanged current experiences with diagnostics as a means for predictive maintenance. Monitoring of the electrical and mechanical components of systems is directly associated with the performance and safety of nuclear power plants. On-line monitoring and diagnostic systems have been applied to reactor vessel internals, pumps, safety and relief valves and turbine generators. The monitoring techniques include nose analysis, vibration analysis, and loose parts detection.
  • Nuclear Space Power Safety and Facility Guidelines Study

    Nuclear Space Power Safety and Facility Guidelines Study

    NUCLEAR SPACE POWER SAFETY AND FACILITY GUIDELINES STUDY (SEPTEMBER 1995) rss Has NUCLEAR SPACE POWER SAFETY AND FACILITY GUIDELINES STUDY (11 September 1995) Prepared for: Department of Energy Office of Procurement Assistance and Program Management HR-522.2 Washington, D.C. 20585 by: William F. Mehlman The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Maryland 20723-6099 in response to: Department of Energy grant to The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory DE-FG01-94NE32180 dated 27 September 1994 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. IfH DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE ...1 1.2 BACKGROUND 1 1.3 SCOPE 3 2.0 NUCLEAR SPACE SAFETY GUIDELINES AND CONSIDERATIONS .
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates

    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.
  • Cooling Wide-Bandgap Materials in Power Electronics

    Cooling Wide-Bandgap Materials in Power Electronics

    Cooling Wide-Bandgap Materials in Power Electronics By Josh Perry Marketing Communications Specialist Advanced Thermal Solutions, Inc. (ATS) Engineers are always looking for an edge in their designs to extract as much power and performance as possible from a system, while attempting to meet industry trends in miniaturization. In the power electronics industry, this has required an examination of the materials being used to overcome inherent limitations from heat, voltage, or switching speed. Engineers are using wide-bandgap materials to expand the capabilities of power electronics, pushing them beyond the thermal and electrical limits of silicon-based components. (Background image created by Xb100 – Freepik.com) For years, silicon was the answer for the power electronics market, but in the past decade there has been a growing movement towards wide-bandgap materials, particularly silicon carbide (SiC) and gallium nitride (GaN). Wide-bandgap materials have higher breakdown voltage and perform more 1 efficiently at high temperatures than silicon-based components. [1] Recent research indicated, “For commercial applications above 400 volts, SiC stands out as a viable near-term commercial opportunity especially for single-chip current ratings in excess of 20 amps.” [2] This efficiency allows systems to consume less power, charge faster, and convert energy at a higher rate. A recent article from Electronic Design explained that SiC power devices “operate at higher switching speeds and higher temperatures with lower losses than conventional silicon.” SiC has an internal resistance that is 100 times lower than silicon and a breakdown electric field of 2.8 MV/cm, which is far higher than silicon’s 0.3 MV/cm, meaning that SiC components can handle the same level of current in smaller packages.
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies

    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.
  • Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor

    Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor

    Technische Universität München Fakultät für Maschinenwesen Lehrstuhl für Nukleartechnik Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor Denis Janin Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Maschinenwesen der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs (Dr.-Ing.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Prof. Phaedon-Stelios Koutsourelakis, PhD Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Prof. Rafael Macián-Juan, PhD 2. Prof. Dr. Jean-Baptiste Thomas Die Dissertation wurde am 08.05.2018 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Maschinenwesen am 01.11.2018 angenommen. ABSTRACT This research work investigates the design and optimization of the high conversion small modular reactor (HCSMR) core. The HCSMR has a thermal output of 600 MW for 200 MW electrical. It is an integrated PWR with a tightened fuel assembly lattice. The rod-to-rod pitch is 1.15 cm in a hexagonal fuel assembly geometry. As a result the moderation ratio (1.0) is reduced compared to large PWRs (around 2.0) and the HCSMR has an improved ability to convert 238U into 239Pu and use plutonium isotopes more efficiently. The core is loaded with MOX fuel. The HCSMR concept finds its roots both in large high conversion light water reactors and small modular reactor (SMR) concepts. The reduced core size results in an increased neutron leakage rate compared to large cores. This intrinsically supports the core behavior in voided situations. The necessity to introduce fertile fuel materials in the core to keep negative void coefficients is reduced, contributing to the HCSMR safety and limited core heterogeneity.
  • Standardization of Radioanalytical Methods for Determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in Waste and Environmental Samples

    Standardization of Radioanalytical Methods for Determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in Waste and Environmental Samples

    NKS-356 ISBN 978-87-7893-440-6 Standardization of Radioanalytical Methods for Determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in Waste and Environmental Samples Xiaolin Hou 1) Laura Togneri 2) Mattias Olsson 3) Sofie Englund 4) Olof Gottfridsson 5) Martin Forsström 6) Hannele Hironen 7) 1) Technical university of Denmark, DTU Nutech 2) Loviisa Power Plant, Fortum Power, Finland 3) Forsmarks Kraftgrupp AB, Sweden 4) OKG Aktiebolag, Sweden 5) Ringhals AB, Sweden 6) Studsvik Nuclear AB, Sweden (7) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Finland January 2016 Abstract This report presents the progress on the NKS-B STANDMETHOD project which was conduced in 2014-2015, aiming to establish a Nordic standard methods for the determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in nuclear reactor process- ing water samples as well as other waste and environmental samples. Two inter-comparison excercises for determination of 63Ni and 55Fe in waste samples have been organized in 2014 and 2015, an evaluation of the results is given in this report. Based on the the results from this project in 2014-2015, Nordic standard methods for determination 63Ni in nuclear reactor processing water and for simultaneous determination of 55Fe and 63Ni in other types of waste and environmental samples respectively are proposed. Meanwhile an analytical method for determination of 55Fe in reactor water samples is also recommended. In addition, some procedures for sequential separation of actinides are presented for the simultaneous determinaiton of isotopes of actinides in waste samples are presented. Key words Radioanalysis; 63Ni; 55Fe; standard method; reactor water NKS-356 ISBN 978-87-7893-440-6 Electronic report, January 2016 NKS Secretariat P.O.
  • Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs

    Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs

    STATUS OF SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED REACTOR DESIGNS A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org @ September 2012 STATUS OF SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED REACTOR DESIGNS A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org FOREWORD There is renewed interest in Member States grids and lower rates of increase in demand. in the development and application of small They are designed with modular technology, and medium sized reactors (SMRs) having an pursuing economies of series production, factory equivalent electric power of less than 700 MW(e) fabrication and short construction times. The or even less than 300 MW(e). At present, most projected timelines of readiness for deployment new nuclear power plants under construction of SMR designs generally range from the present or in operation are large, evolutionary designs to 2025–2030. with power levels of up to 1700 MW(e), The objective of this booklet is to provide building on proven systems while incorporating Member States, including those considering technological advances. The considerable initiating a nuclear power programme and those development work on small to medium sized already having practical experience in nuclear designs generally aims to provide increased power, with a brief introduction to the IAEA benefits in the areas of safety and security, non- Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) proliferation, waste management, and resource by presenting a balanced and objective overview utilization and economy, as well as to offer a of the status of SMR designs. variety of energy products and flexibility in This report is intended as a supplementary design, siting and fuel cycle options.
  • Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants: High Burnup and Mixed Oxide Fuels

    Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants: High Burnup and Mixed Oxide Fuels

    ERIINRC 02-202 ACCIDENT SOURCE TERMS FOR LIGHT-WATER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: HIGH BURNUP AND MIXED OXIDE FUELS Draft Report: June 2002 Final Report: November 2002 Energy Research, Inc. - P.O. Box 2034 Rockville, Maryland 20847-2034 Work Performed Under the Auspices of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, D.C. 20555 ERL/NRC 02-202 ACCIDENT SOURCE TERMS FOR LIGHT-WATER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: HIGH BURNUP AND MIXED OXIDE FUELS Draft Report: June 2002 Final Report: November 2002 Energy Research, Inc. P. 0. Box 2034 Rockville, Maryland 20847-2034 Work performed under the auspices of United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. Under Contract Number NRC-04-97-040 I This page intentionally left blank PREFACE performed by a This report has been prepared by Energy Research, Inc. based on work Office panel of experts organized by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if necessary, of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to develop recommendations for changes, to high burnup to the revised source term as published inlNUREG-1465, for application and mixed oxide fuels. the panel facilitator, and Dr. Brent Boyack of Los Alamos National Laboratory served as of the final report. Energy Research, Inc. has been responsible for the preparation Individual contributors to this report include: Executive Summary M. Khatib-Rahbar Section 1 M. Khatib-Rahbar Section 2 H. Nourbakhsh Section 3 B. Boyack Section 4 M. Khatib-Rahbar A. Hidaka of the Japan Substantial technical input was provided to the panel, by Mr. Evrard of the Institut de Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), and Mr.
  • Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in Nuclear Reactor

    Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer in Nuclear Reactor

    Hydrodynamics and heat transfer in nuclear reactor Lecture 1. Nuclear reactors Department of nuclear and thermal power plants Lecturer: prof. Alexander Korotkikh Contents Introduction Nuclear power plant Classification of nuclear reactors Principle of work of nuclear reactor Heat hydraulic processes in nuclear reactor Conclusion Introduction On June 27, 1954, the world's fist nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid started operations at the Soviet city of Obninsk. A nuclear power plant is a thermal power station in which the heat source is a nuclear reactor. As is typical in all conventional thermal power stations the heat is used to generate steam which drives a steam turbine connected to an electric generator which produces electricity. As of 23 April 2014, the Intern. Atomic Energy Agency report there are 435 nuclear power reactors in operation operating in 31 countries. Nuclear power plants are usually considered to be base load stations, since fuel is a small part of the cost of production. Nuclear power plant The conversion to electrical energy takes place indirectly, as in conventional thermal power plants. The fission in a nuclear reactor heats the reactor coolant. The coolant may be water, gas or liquid metal depending on the type of reactor. The reactor coolant then goes to a steam generator and heats water to produce steam. The pressurized steam is then usually fed to a multi-stage steam turbine. Steam turbines in Western nuclear power plants are among the largest steam turbines ever. After the steam turbine has expanded and partially condensed the steam, the remaining vapor is condensed in a condenser.