DOCSLIB.ORG

Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. The fuel of light-water reactors (LWRs) is mostly low-enriched uranium. Considering current industrial practices, close to 20 tons of natural uranium are needed to generate one TWhe. LWR natural uranium needs could be reduced by increasing the conversion of 238U into 239Pu. This can be achieved by tightening the fuel assembly lattice, which reduces the moderation ratio and hence hardens the neutron spectrum. Such cores loaded with MOX fuel in a closed fuel cycle can reach conversion factors above 0.8 compared to LWR conversion factors close to 0.5. It also enables a better plutonium utilization and limits the production of minor actinides. A renewed interest in small modular reactors (SMRs) can be seen worldwide. The intention to reach long cycle lengths influenced SMR designers to adopt fuel management strategies resulting in low fuel discharge burnup. This leads to a substantial increase in natural uranium needs compared to today’s LWRs. For such SMR designs close to 40 tons of natural uranium are needed to generate one TWhe. The HCSMR core is designed using multi-objective optimization methods. This aims at addressing the multiple parameters influencing the core design by exploring all possible trade- offs between core performances and safety requirements. The objectives are not weighted in a global optimization function: Pareto optimum HCSMR cores are designed. The neutron-physics computations are performed with the deterministic code APOLLO2, CRONOS2 and APOLLO3®. For comparison the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4® is employed. The URANIE platform is used to perform the optimization: to set-up design of experiment, create surrogate model functions and implement genetic algorithms optimization. The outcome is a population of Pareto optimal HCSMR cores. This population makes it possible to reach cycle lengths up to 1200 EFPD, conversion ratios above 0.9 with negative void coefficients and maximum linear power below 400 W/cm. The associated natural uranium needs are significantly reduced, under seven tons of natural uranium are needed to generate one TWhe. Keywords: LWR, High Conversion, Under-moderated, SMR, Multi-objective Optimization, Neural Network, Core design i RESUME Ce travail a pour objectif la conception et l’optimisation d’un petit réacteur à haut facteur de conversion (HCSMR : High Conversion Small Modular Reactor). Le HCSMR a une puissance thermique de 600 MW pour 200 MW électrique. Le concept HCSMR est un petit cœur de type REP intégré, utilisant des assemblages combustibles MOX hexagonaux à pas resserré. Le rapport de modération du HCSMR (1.0) est réduit comparé aux REP standards (2.0). Ceci permet une meilleure conversion des isotopes 238U en 239Pu ainsi qu’une utilisation améliorée du plutonium. Les racines du concept HCSMR se trouvent à la fois dans les cœurs à hauts facteurs de conversion de puissance, et dans les cœurs de petits réacteurs (SMR : Small Modular Reactor). Comparé à un cœur de forte puissance un petit cœur a un taux de fuite neutronique plus élevé. Ceci améliore naturellement le comportement du cœur en situation vidangée. La nécessité d’introduire des éléments combustibles dits fertiles pour limiter l’effet de vidange est alors réduite, contribuant à la sureté du HCSMR et permettant de limiter les hétérogénéités du cœur. Le combustible des Réacteurs à Eau Légère (REL) est principalement composé d’uranium enrichi. En considérant les pratiques industrielles actuelles, près de 20 tonnes d’uranium naturel sont nécessaires pour produire un TWhe. En améliorant la conversion d’238U en 239Pu, les besoins d’uranium naturel peuvent être réduits. Ceci peut être obtenu lorsque le spectre neutronique est durcit. Des cœurs de ce type chargés avec du combustible MOX dans un cycle combustible fermé conduisent à des facteurs de conversion supérieurs à 0,8. Les RELs actuels ont un facteur de conversion proche de 0,5. Les concepts sous-modérés permettent également une meilleure utilisation du plutonium et limite la production d’actinides mineurs. Un regain d’intérêt est observé pour les projets SMR. Le souhait des concepteurs d’obtenir de longues durées de cycle conduit à des taux de combustion du combustible relativement faibles. En conséquence, les besoins d’uranium naturel pour ce type de cœur sont élevés : près de 40 tonnes d’uranium naturel sont nécessaires pour produire un TWhe pour un SMR. La conception du cœur HCSMR utilise des méthodes d’optimisation multicritères. L’objectif est d’explorer l’ensemble des meilleures combinaisons parmi les critères de conception. Plutôt que définir une fonction globale d’optimisation, ce travail s’articule autour de la recherche de surface de Pareto. Les études neutroniques sont réalisées avec les codes déterministes APOLLO2, CRONOS2 et APOLLO3®. Les résultats sont comparés avec ceux obtenus via le code Monte-Carlo TRIPOLI-4®. La plateforme URANIE est utilisée pour les étapes d’optimisation : la création de plan d’expérience, la formation de méta-modèle et l’utilisation d’algorithme génétique. Le résultat de ce travail est une population de cœurs HCSMR optimisés. Parmi ces concepts il est possible d’obtenir des durées de cycle supérieures à 1200 JEPP, des facteurs de conversion au- delà de 0,9 tout en maintenant les taux de vidanges négatifs et des puissances linéiques maximales inférieures à 400 W/Cm. Les besoins d’uranium naturel associés sont réduits à environ sept tonnes pour produire un TWhe. Mots clés: REL, Haut facteurs de conversion, réacteurs sous-modérés, SMR, Optimisation multi- objectifs, Réseaux de neurones, conception réacteurs. ii ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Diese Forschungsarbeit untersucht die Auslegung und Optimierung eines kleinen modularen Reaktors mit erhöhten Brutraten (HCSMR: High Conversion Small Modular Reactor). Der HCSMR hat eine thermische Leistung von 600 MW und erzeugt 200 MW elektrisch. Es ist ein integrierter DWR (Druckwasserreaktor) mit kompaktem Reaktorgitter. Der Abstand zwischen zwei Brennstäben beträgt 1,15 cm in einem hexagonalen Gitter. Damit ist das Moderator-zu- Brennstoffverhältnis (1,0) im Vergleich zu einem großen DWR (2,0) reduziert, und daher hat der HCSMR eine verbesserte Fähigkeit zur Konversion von 238U nach 239Pu und kann Plutonium Isotope effizienter spalten. Im Kern des HCSMR sind MOX Brennelemente eingesetzt. Das HCSMR Konzept leitet sich vom großen DWR mit erhöhten Konversionsraten und von kleinen modularen Reaktoren (SMR) ab. Eine reduzierte Kernhöhe und -breite führten zu einer größeren Neutronenleckage im Vergleich zu einem Standard DWR. Dies wirkt sich positiv auf das Sicherheitsverhalten bei Kühlmittelverluststörfällen aus. Der Bedarf an Brutmaterial zur Minimierung des Kühlmitteldichtekoeffizienten wird damit ebenso reduziert, so dass die gesamte Sicherheit des HCSMR aufgrund verringerter Heterogenität profitiert. DWR Brennstoff besteht heutzutage hauptsächlich aus schwach angereichertem Uran. Moderne DWR benötigen ca. 20 Tonnen natürliches Uran (U-nat), um eine TWhe zu erzeugen. Der Verbrauch an Uran könnte reduziert werden, wenn sich die interne Konversion von 238U auf 239Pu erhöhen ließe. Ein kompakteres Brennstoffgitter ermöglicht dies, und das reduzierte Moderationsverhältnis macht das Neutronenspektrum härter. Solche Kerne ermöglichen Konversionsraten über 0,8 in einem geschlossenen Brennstoffkreislauf. Im Vergleich dazu haben aktuelle DWR-Konversionsraten von ca. 0,5. Dadurch wird auch eine bessere Nutzung von Plutonium möglich bei gleichzeitig verringertem Aufbau der minoren Aktinoide. International wird ein erneutes Interesse an kleinen Reaktoren (SMR) beobachtet. Der Wunsch nach großer Zykluslänge führt bei SMR zwangsläufig auf niedrige Entlade-Abbrände. Das bedeutet einen Anstieg des Bedarfs an natürlichem Uran im Vergleich zu heutigen DWR. Solche SMR haben einen Bedarf von ca. 40 Tonnen natürlichem Uran für die Erzeugung einer TWhe. Der HCSMR Kern
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Core Safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants (Npps) Under Extreme Conditions
    Sadhan¯ a¯ Vol. 38, Part 5, October 2013, pp. 945–970. c Indian Academy of Sciences Core safety of Indian nuclear power plants (NPPs) under extreme conditions JBJOSHI1,∗, AKNAYAK2, M SINGHAL3 and D MUKHOPADHAYA4 1Homi Bhabha National Institute, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 094, India 2Reactor Engineering Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085, India 3Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 0094, India 4Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085, India e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Nuclear power is currently the fourth largest source of electricity produc- tion in India after thermal, hydro and renewable sources of electricity. Currently, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation and seven other reactors are under construction. Most of these reactors are indigenously designed and built Heavy Water Reactors. In addition, a 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor has already been designed and in the process of deployment in near future for demonstration of power production from Thorium apart from enhanced safety features by passive means. India has ambi- tious plans to enhance the share of electricity production from nuclear. The recent Fukushima accident has raised concerns of safety of Nuclear Power Plants world- wide. The Fukushima accident was caused by extreme events, i.e., large earthquake followed by gigantic Tsunami which are not expected to hit India’s coast considering the geography of India and historical records. Nevertheless, systematic investigations have been conducted by nuclear scientists in India to evaluate the safety of the current Nuclear Power Plants in case of occurrence of such extreme events in any nuclear site.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation
    IAEA-TECDOC-1569 Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation December 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1569 Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation December 2007 The originating Sections of this publication in the IAEA were: INIS and Nuclear Knowledge Management and Nuclear Power Technology Development Sections International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria LIQUID METAL COOLED REACTORS: EXPERIENCE IN DESIGN AND OPERATION IAEA, VIENNA, 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1569 ISBN 978–92–0–107907–7 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2007 Printed by the IAEA in Austria December 2007 FOREWORD In 2002, within the framework of the Department of Nuclear Energy’s Technical Working Group on Fast Reactors (TWG-FR), and according to the expressed needs of the TWG-FR Member States to maintain and increase the present knowledge and expertise in fast reactor science and technology, the IAEA established its initiative seeking to establish a comprehensive, international inventory of fast reactor data and knowledge. More generally, at the IAEA meeting of senior officials convened to address issues of nuclear knowledge management underlying the safe and economic use of nuclear science and technology (Vienna, 17–19 June 2002), there was widespread agreement that, for sustainability reasons for fissile sources and waste management, long-term development of nuclear power as a part of the world’s future energy mix will require the fast reactor technology. Furthermore, given the decline in fast reactor development projects, data retrieval and knowledge preservation efforts in this area are of particular importance. This consensus concluded from the recognition of immediate need gave support to the IAEA initiative for fast reactor data and knowledge presevation.
    [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]
  • Advanced Reactors
    © 2012 European Nuclear Society Rue Belliard 65 1040 Brussels, Belgium Phone + 32 2 505 30 54 Fax +32 2 502 39 02 E-mail [email protected] Internet www.euronuclear.org ISBN 978-92-95064-14-0 These transactions contain all contributions submitted by 7 December 2012. The content of contributions published in this book reflects solely the opinions of the authors concerned. The European Nuclear Society is not responsible for details published and the accuracy of data presented. 2 of 96 ENC2012-A0026 Development of a thermohydraulic model of the Lazaro Chueca, A. (1); Ammirabile, L. (1); European Sodium Fast Reactor (ESFR) using Martorell, S. (2) the system code TRACE. 1 - JRC-IET, Netherlands 2 - Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain ENC2012-A0028 Generation IV Technology Status including Anderson, G. (1); Lillington, J. (1) recent R & D Activities in ANSWERS 1 - AMEC, United Kingdom ENC2012-A0053 Preliminary Design Assessment of the Molten Merle-Lucotte, E. (1); Allibert, M. (1); Salt Fast Reactor Brovchenko, M. (1); Ghetta, V. (1); Heuer, D. (1); Rubiolo, P. (1); Laureau, A. (1) 1 - LPSC-IN2P3-CNRS / UJF / Grenoble INP, France ENC2012-A0078 Development of materials to withstand the Shepherd, D. (1) extreme, irradiated environments in advanced 1 - National Nuclear Laboratory, United Kingdom nuclear fission reactors ENC2012-A0126 ARCHER:- Material and component challenges Buckthorpe, D. (1) for the Advanced High Temperature Reactor 1 - AMEC, United Kingdom ENC2012-A0258 Pressure Drop Analysis of a Pressure-Tube Type Peiman, W. (1); Saltanov, E. (1); Pioro, I. SuperCritical Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR) (1); Gabriel, K. (1) 1 - University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada ENC2012-A0003 SPES3: THE INTEGRAL FACILITY FOR Ferri, R.
    [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]
  • INIS-Mf —14954 CA9600857
    i-\ I- S I *• t. -^ INIS-mf —14954 III CA9600857 v // / A ^r^-14 i I ULJ n ^^ ISSN 0S3?-O299 CURRENT ISSUE PAPER i 17 NCIIERNOBYL, THREE MILE ISLAND AND BEYOND; LESSONS FOR ONTARIO? Prepared by: K. Lewis Yeagcr Research C fficer Legij'ative Research Service March 1991 y Ho-sonrch So THKSSSim Nuclear power has been a fact of life in the developed world for two generations. It is v. workhorse supplier of base electricity loads in Ontario, France. Belgium, Japan and many American states. Highly publicized accidents at Chernobyl, and .to.a.lesser..:. extent Three Mile Island, have raised public concern around the world about the safety of nuclear generatin;;, -nations. Since the planning process which will guide the Province's 'power generic:1. for <!ie next 25'years is now under way, it isimportant" that the public and elected officials understand how and why these and other nuclear accidents occurred and whether there are lessons.to.be learned in designing and-, operating CANUU facilities in Ontario. Tilts Current Issue Paper reviews major accidents which nave occurred at commercial and military nuclear facilities, and provides basic background on nuclear power and reactor design features to assist the novice in understanding the very complex technical issues surrounding these events. Above all, the role of human factors in the prevention of potential accident situations is emphasized. ih>- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No l-xncurivr-: SUMMARY . j INTRODUCTION , ] BACKGROUND 2 . General Principles of Nuclear Power 2 Types of Reactors " " " ~ ' 3 Nuclear Safety Philosophy 5 THREE MILE ISLAND .... 8 The Plant : 8 The Accident ; ft Local Impacts .
    [Show full text]
  • 60 Years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955
    Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 - 2018 Part 4: Europe & Canada Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 4: Europe & Canada. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2A: United States - Submarines Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Advanced Gas Cooled Type of Reactor (AGR)
    Nordisk Nordisk Poh|oismaincn Nordic kerne- karn- ydin- nuclear sikkerheds- sakcrhets- turvallisuus- safely forskning forskning lutkimus research KAK-2 NKS/RAK2(96)TR-C2 DK9700041 Description of the Advanced Gas Cooled Type of Reactor (AGR) Erik Nonbel Riso National Laboratory Roskilde, Denmark November 1996 Abstract The present report comprises a technical description of the Advanced Gas cooled Reactor (AGR), a reactor type which has only been built in Great Britain 14 AGR reactors have been built, located at 6 different sites and each station is supplied with twin-reactors The Torness AGR plant on the Lothian coastline of Scotland, 60 km east of Edinburgh, has been chosen as the reference plant and is described in some detail Data on the other 6 stations, Dungeness B, Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Hartlepool, Heysham I and Heysham II, are given only in tables with a summary of design data Where specific data for Torness AGR has not been available, corresponding data from other AGR plants has been used, primarily from Heysham II, which belongs to the same generation of AGR reactors The information presented is based on the open literature The report is written as a part of the NKS/RAK-2 subproject 3 "Reactors in Nordic Surroundings", which comprises a description of nuclear power plants neighbouring the Nordic countries NKS/RAK-2(96)TR-C2 ISBN 87-550-2264-2 Graphic Service, Riso, 1996 Tlic report can be obtained from NKS Secretariat Phone +45 46 77 40 45 POBox49 Fax +45 46 35 92 73 DK-4000 Roskildc hUp/Auuv nsoc dk/nks Denmark e-mail anncttc.lemmensfr nsoe dk -3- Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 8 2 SUMMARY OF DESIGN DATA 10 3 SITE AND REGION 13 3.1 Selection of the site 13 4 SAFETY CRITERIA 14 5 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN EVALUATION 15 5.1 Plant arrangement 15 5.2 Buildings and structures 16 5.3 Reactor core and other reactor vessel internals 17 5.3.1 Mechanical design..
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Cycle, KD2430
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2011 Lecture 8: Reactor Concepts Fission Exotherm process for all nuclides with more than 130 nucleons (A>130) Activation energy for A=130 is very high; 100 MeV For A > 230 the activation energy is <10 MeV Fission with thermal (slow) neutrons is only possible for (even,odd) or (odd,odd) nuclei with Z>90 Nuclear chain reaction 235U + n fission products + 2.4 n + 210 MeV Fission of 235U with thermal neutrons Thermal neutron is captured and forms an excited compound nuclueus 235U + n (236U)* Excitation energy = captured neutron’s binding energy (6.8 MeV). Compound nucleus must emit energy. Either as γ or by fission. Probability for these can be expressed as cross sections σn,γ and σn,f 2 fission products + ν neutrons (236U)* 236U + γ => 85% of captured neutrons will cause fission Energy balance Binding energy/nucleon for heavy nuclei: 7.6 MeV Binding energy/nucleon for semi-heavy nuclei (A=80-150): 8.5 MeV Difference: 0.9 MeV For U-235: 235×0.9 MeV = 210 MeV Kinetic energy of fission products: 175 MeV Kinetic energy of neutrons: 5 MeV Kinetic energy of γ: 7 MeV β from fission products: 7 MeV γ from fission products 6 MeV Neutrinos (energy is lost): 10 MeV Effective neutron multiplication factor, k • If the number of produced neutrons, k > 1 Supercritical => Atomic explosion • If k< 1 Subcritical=> Chain reaction will die out • In a nuclear reactor k is controlled to be 1 (critical) with control rods (containing neutron-absorbent) Moderating neutrons • Fast and slow (thermal) neutrons are produced.
    [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]
  • Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments
    Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments Technology in Small Modular Reactor Advances A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) 2018 Edition For further information: Nuclear Power Technology Development Section (NPTDS) Division of Nuclear Power IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre PO Box 100 1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone: +43 1 2600-0 Fax: +43 1 2600-7 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.iaea.org Printed by IAEA in Austria September 2018 18-02989E ADVANCES IN SMALL MODULAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS 2018 Edition A Supplement to: IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org DISCLAIMER This is not an official IAEA publication. The material has not undergone an official review by the IAEA. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the International Atomic Energy Agency or its Member States and remain the responsibility of the contributors. Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
    [Show full text]