DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing Enabling Nuclear Innovation Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing A Report by the Nuclear Innovation Alliance Enabling Nuclear Innovation Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing Enabling Nuclear Innovation Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing LEAD AUTHOR Ashley E. Finan, Ph.D., Clean Air Task Force TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTORS Francis “Chip” Cameron, CameronGray, LLC Joseph R. Gray, CameronGray, LLC David B. Matthews, Nuclear Energy Consultants, Inc. Edward G. Wallace, GNBC Associates, Inc. A Report by the Nuclear Innovation Alliance April 2016 ii NUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCE Acknowledgements Enabling Nuclear Innovation: This report was made possible through the generous Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing support of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Pritzker Innovation Fund, Ross Koningstein, Ray Rothrock, and Jim Swartz. April 2016 The authors would like to thank the following individuals and © 2016 Nuclear Innovation Alliance organizations for their invaluable contributions and counsel: All Rights Reserved. Todd Allen, George Apostolakis, Jim Kinsey, Marilyn Kray, Peter Lyons, Adam Reichenbach, Paul Roege, Dan Stout, Gen4 Energy, Nuclear Energy Institute, NuScale Power, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Terrestrial Energy, Transatomic Power, X-energy, and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance Policy and Advisory Committees. Clean Air Task Force, Energy Innovation Reform Project, Third Way, and The Breakthrough Institute endorse the www.nuclearinnovationalliance.org recommendations of this report. This report is available online at: http://www.nuclearinnovationalliance.org/#!advanced- reactor-licensing/xqkhn DESIGN David Gerratt/NonProfitDesign.com EDITING Rusty Russell/thewritingcounselor.net DISCLAIMER COVER PHOTOS This report emerges from the knowledge and experience of a core Clockwise from top left: “Hydrides in Spent Fuel” team of industry and regulatory experts, as well as a broader range © Tammy Trowbridge and Joe Pehrson; of inputs that address the specific needs of stakeholder communities. “Uranium Fenced In” © Scott Ploger; Not all of the issues that the team brought up are included in this “Crystallographic Zircaloy” © Tammy Trowbridge; report, nor did all parties agree on the relative importance of or solution “Crystal Blue Persuasion” © Yuedong Wu; “Alloys to each of the issues raised here. Thus, although they recognize the That Can Take The Heat” © Tammy Trowbridge and many valuable contributions to this effort, the authors and NIA assume Joe Pehrson; “Particles Suspended” © Scott Ploger. full responsibility for this document’s contents, conclusions, and recommendations. The views expressed are those of the authors Visit artsci.inl.gov for more information. and not necessarily those of the funders. STRATEGIES FOR ADVANCED REACTOR LICENSING iii Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................2 A. Regulatory Recommendations ............................................................................3 B. Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................5 C. Industry Recommendations ................................................................................6 I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................7 A. Nuclear Innovation: Importance and Potential ......................................................7 B. Challenges to Nuclear Innovation ........................................................................8 C. Guide for the Reader .......................................................................................12 II. Reactor Development and Deployment Process .....................................................14 III. Useful Regulatory Models and Observations ..........................................................17 A. Historical Practices at the NRC and the AEC ......................................................17 1. Early AEC Practices ...................................................................................17 2. Post-ERA DOE and NRC Non-LWR Practices..................................................18 B. UK Office of Nuclear Regulation and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission..........19 1. Pre-Licensing Design Review ......................................................................20 2. Cost Limitation Agreements for Pre-Licensing Review Activities .....................24 3. More Flexible Regulation ............................................................................24 4. Public Participation ....................................................................................25 C. Federal Aviation Administration .........................................................................26 1. FAA Regulatory Process .............................................................................26 2. FAA Use of Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation .......................28 D. Food and Drug Administration ..........................................................................29 1. FDA Mission and Structure .........................................................................29 2. Drug Approval Process ...............................................................................30 3. Development and Regulation of New Technologies .......................................31 iv NUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCE IV. Mechanisms for Staging Advanced Reactor Licensing .................................................. 32 A. Developing a Licensing Project Plan ........................................................................ 32 B. Using Topical Reports to Create a Staged Approach ................................................. 34 1. How Topical Reports Work ................................................................................. 34 2. Execution of a Staged Topical Report Program ..................................................... 36 3. Topical Report Benefits ...................................................................................... 37 4. Topical Report Review Duration .......................................................................... 38 5. Limitations of Topical Report Conclusions ........................................................... 38 6. Actions by NRC Needed to Implement this Approach ............................................ 38 C. Using the Standard Design Approval to Create a Staged Approach ............................ 38 1. How Standard Design Approval Works................................................................. 39 2. Execution of a Standard Design Approval within a Staged Process ........................ 39 3. Standard Design Approval Benefits ..................................................................... 43 4. Standard Design Approval Review Duration ......................................................... 43 5. Specific Conclusions from Standard Design Approval ........................................... 44 6. Limitations of Standard Design Approval Conclusions .......................................... 44 D. Providing a Statement of Licensing Feasibility .......................................................... 44 E. Staged Licensing Results ....................................................................................... 45 1. Benefits and Challenges .................................................................................... 45 2. Improved Timeline Potential ............................................................................... 46 F. Finality of Decisions in a Staged Licensing Process ................................................. 48 V. Other Possible Improvements to Advanced Reactor Licensing ...................................... 49 A. Providing a More Technology-Inclusive Licensing Process .......................................... 49 1. Probabilistic Risk Assessment as a Regulatory Tool ............................................. 49 2. Past and Current NRC Initiatives and Practices .................................................... 50 3. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 52 B. Preparing and Clarifying an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Licensing Process ........ 52 1. Summary of Current DOE and NRC Responsibilities ............................................. 53 2. Key Issues ....................................................................................................... 54 STRATEGIES FOR ADVANCED REACTOR LICENSING v VI. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 55 A. Regulatory ............................................................................................................ 55 B. Policy ................................................................................................................... 58 C. Industry ................................................................................................................ 58 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A: The Advanced Reactor Development and Deployment Process ........................ 61 A. Development Process Stakeholder Timelines ........................................................... 61 B. Reducing Program Risk .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns About Small Modular Reactors
    Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Edwin Lyman September 2013 © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Edwin Lyman is a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. More information is available about UCS at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/SMR and may also be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. Design: Catalano Design Front cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); reactors from top to bottom: © NuScale Power, LLC, © Holtec SMR, LLC, © 2012 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc., and © Westinghouse Electric Company. Back cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); © Westinghouse Electric Company (reactor). Acknowledgments This report was made possible by funding from Park Foundation, Inc., Wallace Research Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and UCS members. The author would like to thank Trudy E. Bell for outstanding editing, Rob Catalano for design and layout, Bryan Wadsworth for overseeing production, and Scott Kemp, Lisbeth Gronlund, and David Wright for useful discussions and comments on the report. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that funded the work or the individuals who reviewed it.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • WHAT WILL ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS COST? a Standardized Cost Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Technologies in Commercial Development
    WHAT WILL ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS COST? A Standardized Cost Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Technologies in Commercial Development AN ENERGY INNOVATION REFORM PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY THE ENERGY OPTIONS NETWORK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Study Motivation and Objectives 6 Why Care about Advanced Nuclear Costs? 7 Origins of This Study 8 A Standardized Framework for Cost Analysis 8 2. Results 9 3. Study Methodology 14 EON Model 15 Company Preparedness and Strategies 19 Limits of This Analysis 20 Certainty Levels for Advanced Nuclear Cost Estimates 20 Realistic Considerations That May Influence Cost 21 4. Advanced Nuclear’s Design and Delivery Innovations 22 Context: The Cost of Conventional Nuclear 23 Design Considerations for Conventional Nuclear Reactors 24 Safety Enhancements of Advanced Nuclear 24 Overview of Reactor Designs 25 Delivery Issues with Conventional Nuclear Power 27 Innovations in the Delivery of Advanced Nuclear Technologies 28 Design Factors That Could Increase Advanced Nuclear Costs 30 5. Conclusions 31 6. References 32 Appendix A: Nuclear Plant Cost Categories 34 Appendix B: Operating Costs for a Nuclear Plant 35 Appendix C: Cost Category Details and Modeling Methodology 36 Appendix D: External Expert Review of Draft Report 43 THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY: A STANDARDIZED COST ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Advanced nuclear technologies are controversial. Many people believe they could be a panacea for the world’s energy problems, while others claim that they are still decades away from reality and much more complicated and costly than conventional nuclear technologies. Resolving this debate requires an accurate and current understanding of the increasing movement of technology development out of national nuclear laboratories and into private industry.
    [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]
  • Nuscale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications
    Proceedings of ICAPP 2014 Charlotte, USA, April 6-9, 2014 Paper 14337 NuScale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications D. T. Ingersoll,a C. Colbert,a R. Bromm,b and Z. Houghtona aNuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200, Corvallis, OR 97330 bFluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Dr., Greenville, SC 29607 Tel: 541-360-0585 , Email: [email protected] Abstract – The oil recovery and refining market is highly energy intensive, representing roughly 7% of the total U.S. energy consumption. The NuScale small modular reactor design is especially well suited for supplying clean, reliable energy to this market due to the compact size of the reactor and the high degree of modularity included in the design, allowing multiple reactors to be combined into a scalable central plant. A preliminary technical and economic assessment has been completed to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of using NuScale power modules to support oil recovery and refining processes, thus reducing the overall carbon footprint of these industrial complexes and preserving valuable fossil resources as feedstock for higher value products. I. INTRODUCTION modular reactors (SMR), are generally characterized by having unit power outputs of less than 300 MWe and are The production of refined petroleum products is highly substantially manufactured in a factory and installed at the energy intensive with most of the energy being used either site rather than constructed on-site. in the field for crude oil recovery processes or at a refinery A new SMR design that has been under development for processing of the crude oil into end-use products such in the United States since 2000 is the NuScale design that as transportation fuels or petrochemicals.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Nuclear Markets – Market Arrangements and Service Agreements
    INL/EXT-16-38796 Global Nuclear Markets – Market Arrangements and Service Agreements Brent Dixon Leilani Beard June 2016 The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. INL/EXT-16-38796 Global Nuclear Markets – Market Arrangements and Service Agreements Brent Dixon Leilani Beard June 2016 Idaho National Laboratory Nuclear Systems Design & Analysis Division Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Under U.S. Department of Energy-Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 Forward The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (EPSA) requested an assessment of global nuclear markets, including the structure of nuclear companies in different countries and the partnerships between reactor vendors and buyers.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2
    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors an Analysis of Factors Related to Siting and Licensing in Washington State
    Small Modular Reactors An Analysis of Factors Related to Siting and Licensing in Washington State Prepared for: Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council January 2016 Executive Summary This report investigates the potential for developing Appendix A to this report provides a status update nuclear power generation in the state of Washington, for many of the agencies, companies and research focusing on one of the advanced nuclear reactor organizations who are involved in activities related design technologies currently in development: Small to SMR development and related nuclear power Modular Reactors (SMRs). SMRs are defined by the development. This provides the reader with an US Department of Energy (USDOE) and others in understanding of current SMR technology and the industry as nuclear power plant “modules” of development, much of which would apply if an 300 megawatts or less. Their concept includes offsite applicant proposes an SMR in Washington in the future. manufacturing, self-contained fuel, power generation For example, industry groups and agencies such as and cooling, multiple module operation, and passive USDOE have recommended a number of regulatory core failure protection that requires no action to changes related to SMR licensing. The NRC is considering ensure core integrity in the case of an accident. rule changes in response to those recommendations. This report looks at a range of potentially suitable Finally, although many different SMR technologies locations for such a facility in Washington by applying are being examined around the world, the United selected site selection criteria on a statewide basis. It States has 4-5 different designs in contention.
    [Show full text]
  • Download 2020 Year in Review
    2020 in review dedication of the entire NuScale team. Thank you for being a part of the supportive community that has cheered us on along the way. NuScale’s licensing, engineering, manufacturing, construction, and deployment work progresses and we remain on schedule to deliver NuScale Power Modules™ to clients by 2027. The thrill of bringing the country’s very first NuScale power plant online only two years after that has not faded—our excitement grows with each passing John L. Hopkins day. This is truly the decade of the SMR and NuScale is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer proud to usher it in. We share other exciting announcements in this review of Though 2020 was a remarkable year at NuScale Power, 2020, such as our new smaller power plant solutions and it was certainly not without its challenges. As the world the ability of our SMR to produce even more power to endeavors to cope with a pandemic that still presents so bring additional flexibility and economic benefits to our much uncertainty, there will be more challenges yet to customers. I hope you enjoy reading about these and other address. Through the inward reflection that 2020 has inspiring developments and that you continue to stay required of us all, may we move gracefully into the year connected with us as a part of the NuScale community. ahead with renewed inspiration and a clear commitment to bring about a healthier and more prosperous world for With a transformational year behind us, we look ahead to everyone. I know that together we can bring about the 2021 with a commitment to people, planet, and prosperity changes we wish to see to make this new world a reality.
    [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]