DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Nuclear Power After the Fukushima Accidents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Nuclear Power After the Fukushima Accidents The Future of Nuclear Power After the Fukushima Accidents Alexander Glaser Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Princeton University Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 Revision 4 Nuclear Power: Years of Uneventfulness Interrupted by Moments of Sheer Terror? Fukushima Chernobyl Three Mile Island Low estimate based on the number of operating reactors by age, IAEA Power Reactor Information System (actual value for 2010 closer to 14,000 reactor years) Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 2 The March 2011 Fukushima Accidents (Quick Review) Nuclear Power Plants in Japan, 2011 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 4 6 5 1 2 3 4 Fukushima-Daiichi Plant Source: TEPCO, undated Layout of MK-I Boiling Water Reactor Refueling bay Secondary containment Reactor pressure vessel Spent fuel pool Reactor core Primary containment (“light bulb”) Drywell Wetwell (torus) Suppression pool Source: MovGP0, General Electric Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 6 Explosions of Secondary Containment Buildings of Units 1 and 3 Unit 1, March 12, 2011, 3:36 p.m. Unit 3, March 14, 2011, 11:01 a.m. Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 7 March 14, 2011 - DigitalGlobe 8 Lessons (to be) Learned What To Do With the Existing Fleet? Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, 2011 (442 minus 4 reactors in 30 countries, providing about 14% of global electricity) 32 18 164 Europe 104 50–4 13 2 21 2 20 6 2 2 2 More than 10 GWe installed Less than 10 GWe installed Last update: 1 Feb 2011 The Existing Fleet of Power Reactors is Aging United States 40 64 1/1 France 58 1 Japan 7 43 4/2 Russia 9 23 11 South Korea 21 5 India 3 17 5 United Kingdom 4 15 1 Canada 2/16 Germany 1/9/7 Ukraine 15 1/2 China 13 27 Sweden 4 6 Operating, nearing 40-year life (78) Spain 1/7 Operating, first criticality after 1975 (353) Belgium 1/6 Under construction (65) Taiwan 6/2 Czech Republic 6 Destroyed in accidents (6) Switzerland 3/2 Slovak Republic 4 2 Shutdown in response to accident (7) Finland 4 1 Source: IAEA Power Reactor Information System Hungary 4 March 22, 2011 ALL OTHERS 3 14 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 12 Weaknesses of Old Reactor Designs Have Been Known for Decades “Steve’s idea to ban pressure suppression containment schemes is an attractive one in some ways. … However, the acceptance of … [these] containment concepts … is firmly embedded in the conventional wisdom. Reversal of this hallowed policy … could well be the end of nuclear power. It would throw into question the operation of licensed plants, would make unlicensable the … plants now under review, and would generally create more turmoil than I can stand.” Joseph Hendrie, 1972 Then Deputy Director for Technical Review U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 13 Most New Construction is Underway in China Lock-in of China’s Fleet with GEN II Technology? ReactorDesign China France Japan South Korea Russia Other Total GENERATION II CPR-1000 18 - - - - - 19.4 GW-- CNP Series 3 - - - - - 2.0 GW-- OPR-1000 - - - 4 - - 4.0 GW-- VVER - - - - 7 4 12.3 GW-- GENERATION III APR-1400 - - - 2 - - 2.7 GW-- ABWR - - 2 - - 2 5.4 GW-- APWR - - 2 - - - 3.1 GW-- GENERATION III+ AP-1000 4 - - - - - 4.8 GW-- EPR 2 1 - - - 1 6.6 GW-- TOTAL 27 1 4 6 7 7 60.3 GW-- Source: Robert Rosner and Steve Goldberg, Nuclear Power post-Fukushima, University of Chicago, March 29, 2011 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 14 What About Advanced Reactor Designs? Advanced Reactors Promise Enhanced Safety Double-walled containment Four separate emergency core cooling systems (with independent and geographically separated trains) Corium spreading area (“core catcher”) Shown: Areva EPR Estimated core damage frequency: 6 x 10-7 per year Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 16 Advanced Reactors Are Also Expensive Olkiluoto 3 (Finland, Areva): Four years behind schedule (2013 vs 2009) Turnkey agreement ($4.3 billion), currently estimated loss for Areva: $3.8 billion Source: Francois de Beaupuy, “Areva’s Overruns at Finnish Nuclear Plant Approach Initial Cost,” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 24, 2010 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 17 Overnight Capital Cost Variation By Reactor Type, 2007–2008 $3000/kWe installed translate to about 10 ¢/kWh Source: Nuclear Technology Review 2009, Uncertainties and Variation in Nuclear Power Investment Costs International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2009 (DRAFT) Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 18 Could Small Nuclear Reactors Play a Role? Some concepts are based on proven reactor technology Babock & Wilcox mPower Concept • Light-water cooled • 125-750 MWe • Underground construction • 60-year spent fuel storage onsite • Quasi-standard LWR fuel Source: www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/ Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 19 Looking Ahead Achieving One “Socolow Wedge” By 2050 Notional Buildup of Nuclear Capacity 1,600 “Socolow Wedge” 1,200 IAEA 2008 “high” 800 “Expansion begins” Installed nuclear capacity [GWe] capacity nuclear Installed 400 IAEA 2008 “low” 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 21 Achieving One “Socolow Wedge” By 2050 Would Require Unprecedented Construction Rates 100 80 60 40 Historic maximum (32 GW added in 1984) (includes new construction and replacement) new construction (includes Annual nuclear capacity added [GWe/yr] capacity nuclear Annual 20 “Expansion begins” 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 22 America's Energy Future: Technology and Transformation National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; National Research Council Washington, DC, July 2009 www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12091 America’s Energy Future National Research Council, July 2009, Executive Summary “The deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies is the nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy, especially over the next decade. The potential energy savings available from the accelerated deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could more than offset the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) projected increases in energy consumption through 2030.” Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 24 America’s Energy Future National Research Council, July 2009, Executive Summary “The viability of two key technologies must be demonstrated during the next decade to allow for their widespread deployment starting around 2020: - Demonstrate whether CCS technologies ... are technically and commercially viable for application to both existing and new power plants. […] - Demonstrate whether evolutionary nuclear plants are commercially viable in the United States by constructing a suite of about five plants during the next decade.” Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 25 The Next Decade Little (if any) new capacity will be added in the United States Western Europe is walking away from new build Little (if any) capacity will come online in “newcomer” countries By the end of the decade, we may NOT understand much better the economics and some other constraints of nuclear power Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 26 What Should Be Done In the Meantime? Refrain From Reprocessing and Move Toward Dry-Cask Storage Stocks of Civilian Plutonium are Growing and dwarf military stockpiles in a disarming world R. Socolow and A. Glaser, “Balancing Risks: Nuclear Energy and Climate Change,” Daedalus, 2009. Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 29 Dry Cask Storage of Spent Fuel is a simple and proven strategy for the next decades Source: Department of Energy See for example: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.pdf Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 30 Build a New Framework for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Global Enrichment Capacities, 2010 (14 operational plants in 10 countries, not including two military plants) 26,200 20,000 10,000 150 10 1,000 120 tSWU/yr Total SWU-production in country/region Why Centrifuges Are Different Zippe Centrifuge, 1959 Characteristics of centrifuge technology relevant to nuclear proliferation Rapid Breakout and Clandestine Option Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 33 Newcomer Countries, 2010 According to the IAEA, 60+ countries are currently considering nuclear programs More than 10 GWe installed Less than 10 GWe installed Considering nuclear program 63 countries shown Last update: Fall 2010 Preventing the Further Spread and Assuring Peaceful Use Preventing • Tighten export controls (further) Further Spread • Delegitimize enrichment in today’s “non-enrichment” states • Increase the ability to detect undeclared facilities • Encourage multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle Assuring Increase the effectiveness of IAEA safeguards Peaceful • Use • Revisit alternative “proliferation-resistant” technologies Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 36 Concluding Remarks The Fukushima accidents have reminded us that we continue to rely on a reactor technology that is not “state-of-the-art” Critical debate needed about life-extensions and safety objectives for future reactors The economics of nuclear power are bleak Advanced reactors promise enhanced safety but are also more expensive Small modular reactors would have to be “mass-produced” to overcome “economy-of-scale” penalty The next decade is critical Not much new nuclear capacity will be added in the United States and Europe Time to establish adequate technologies and new norms of governance Rutgers Energy Institute, 6th Annual Energy Symposium, May 4, 2011 37 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Core Melt Stabilization Concepts for Existing and Future Lwrs and Associated R&D Needs
    Core melt stabilization concepts for existing and future LWRs and associated R&D needs Manfred Fischer (corresponding author) AREVA GmbH, Severe Accident Analysis Dept. Paul Gossen Str. 100, 91052 Erlangen, Germany [email protected] Sevostian V. Bechta KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Nuclear Power Safety, Physics Dept. Roslagstullsbacken 21, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden [email protected] Vladimir V. Bezlepkin ATOMPROECT Enterprise of ROSATOM State Corporation 82, Savushkina St., Saint Petersburg, Russia 197183 [email protected] Ryoichi Hamazaki Toshiba Corporation, Nuclear Safety System Design & Engineering Dept. 8 ShinSugita-Cho, Isogo-Ku, Yokohama 235-8523, Japan [email protected] Alexei Miassoedov Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany [email protected] ABSTRACT In the event of a severe accident with core melting in a NPP the stabilization of the molten corium is an important mitigation issue, as it can avoid late containment failure caused by basemat penetration, overpressure, or severe damage of internal structures. The related failure modes may result in significant long-term radiological consequences and high related costs. Because of this, the licensing framework of several countries now includes the request to implement mitigative core melt stabilization measures. This does not only apply to new builds but also to existing LWR plants. The paper gives an overview of the ex-vessel core melt stabilization strategies developed during the last decades. These strategies are based on a variety of physical principles like: melt fragmentation in a deep water pool or during molten core concrete interaction with top-flooding, water injection from the bottom (COMET concept), and retention in an outside-cooled crucible structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Nuclear Plants
    Design of nuclear plants Reactor technology Lecture 1 Ildikó Boros Assistant lecturer Budapest University of Technology and Economics Institute of Nuclear Techniques (BME NTI) 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 1 Contents Operation of nuclear reactors (lecturer: …. Mr. Szabolcs Czifrus) Reactor technology (lecturer: I. Boros) 1. Main NPP types, reactor generations. Advanced NPP types 2. Fuel, reactor core, pressure vessel 3. PWR main systems (primary, secondary systems), safety systems 4. Containment systems 5. Cooling of NPPs 6. BWR, PHWR, other types 7. exotic reactors (fast breeders, etc.) 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 2 Nuclear energy at present • Share of nuclear in electricity production (2011 -> 2014): world 16% → 11% EU 35% → 27% Hungary 36% → 53% • 448 NPP units operate worldwide Source: WNA • 57 units under construction • Design lifetime of most units expires between 2015 and 2030 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 3 Nuclear energy at present • Share of nuclear in electricity production (2011 -> 2014): world 16% → 11% 13% EU 35% → 27% Hungary 36% → 53% • 448 NPP units operate 51% worldwide Source: WNA • 57 units under construction • Design lifetime of most units expires between 2015 and 2030 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 4 Trends in nuclear industry 24/10/2018 Source: WNA Reactor technology 5 Trends in nuclear industry Source: IAEA Power reactors under construction 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 6 BASICS OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY 24/10/2018 Reactor technology 7 Nuclear fission • In certain isotopes, spontaneous or induced fission of the nucleus
    [Show full text]
  • A Joint Report on PSA for New and Advanced Reactors
    Nuclear Safety NEA/CSNI/R(2012)17 www.oecd-nea.org A Joint Report on PSA for New and Advanced Reactors NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(2012)17 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 19-Feb-2013 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(2012)17 A Joint Report on PSA for New and Advanced Reactors JT03334892 English text only Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. NEA/CSNI/R(2012)17 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactor Technology Assessments
    UxC Special Report April 2008 Nuclear Reactor Technology Assessments Table of Contents A service of Ux Consulting 1401 Macy Drive Roswell, GA 30076 (770) 642-7745 www.uxc.com – NOTICE – The Ux Consulting Company, LLC (“UxC”) shall have title to, ownership of, and all proprietary rights in this Report. Under United States federal copyright law (17 USC 101 et seq.) it is illegal to reproduce this Report by any means without written permission from UxC. The information contained in this Report is obtained from sources that UxC believes to be reliable. UxC makes no warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this Report and UxC, to the maximum extent permitted by law, assumes no liability for the use or effects of any of the information or data contained in this Report. It is UxC’s strict policy not to endorse, promote, or recommend any particular securities, currencies, or other finan- cial products or instruments. Nothing contained in this Report is intended to constitute investment, legal, tax, ac- counting or other professional advice and the reader should not rely on the information provided in this Report for making financial decisions. Nuclear Reactor Technology Assessments - Apr 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 – Introduction __________________________________________________________________________ 7 Why Buy this Report ....................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Generation III of Nuclear Reactors
    Generation III of nuclear reactors Generation III The nuclear reactors technology Summary of the generation III of nuclear reactors technology Actual status of realization Ing. Martin Titka, AREVA NP Controls, Bratislava for Young Generation at NUSIM 2008 in Častá Papierni čka This figures are not authorized by AREVA. All data have beenCopyright compiled © AREVA from official NP Controls, sources s.r.o. l ike2007. internet All rights, by including the author rights created by patent grant or registration of a utility model or design, are reserved. Any reproduction, transmission or use of this document or its contents wholly or in part is not permitted without express written authority. Any violation may result in liability for damages. Copyright © AREVA NP Controls, s.r.o. 2008. All rights, including rights created by patent grant or registration of a utility model or design, are reserved. Any reproduction, transmission or use of this document or its contents wholly or in part is not permitted without express written authority. Any violation may result in liability for damages. AREVA NP Controls Martin Titka, 2008 Nuclear power plant generations EPR AP 1000 VVER 1200 APR 1400 APWR ABWR ESBWR ACR-1000 > Enhanced safety (4 safety trains, core catcher, protection against aircraft crash…) > Enhanced construction (modular systems, new technology) > Simplification and optimization of System/Equipment design and construction > Digital I&C > Enhanced economical aspects… AREVA NP Controls Martin Titka, 2008 All rights reserved. See copyright notice on cover sheet. 2 Perspective for New Nuclear Plants EPR (AREVA) AP 1000 (Westinghouse) VVER 1200 (ASE) PWR APR 1400 (Doosan) APWR (MHI) LWR VBER 300 (ASE) VVER 1000 (ASE) CNP-1000 (CNNC) CPR-1000 (CGNPC) CNP-600 (CNNC) Nuclear reactors BWR ABWR (GE, Hitachi) ESBWR (GE) AB 1600 (Toshiba) SWR 1000 (AREVA) HWR ACR 1000 (AECL) Indian Department of Atomic Energy AREVA NP Controls Martin Titka, 2008 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • [Document Title]
    [EHNUR WP 4] ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONCEPTS AND TIMETABLES FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT Steven C. Sholly1 VIENNA, June 2013 1 Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Copyright Vienna, June 2013 Media owner and editor: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, Institute of Safety and Risk Sciences, Borkowskigasse 4, 1190 Wien, Austria URL: http://www.risk.boku.ac.at ReportWP4 – Advanced Nuclear Power Plant Concepts and Timetables EHNUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most currently operating nuclear power plants are Generation II reactors (except for a few remaining Generation I units and a few Generation III units). Generation III and Generation III+ nuclear power plant concepts are widely recognized to be significant improvements over Generation II reactor designs. Both Generation III designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II) and Generation III+ designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II and with the expectation of greater economy of scale) are available for immediate deployment. The absolute minimum schedule for a Generation III or III+ nuclear power plant project is 10 years from feasibility study to completion of startup testing. Such a schedule is only achievable by: (a) an experienced utility, (b) with the reactor sited at an existing nuclear power plant site, and (c) with a design for which first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) is complete. Under other circumstances (e.g. a utility new to nuclear generation, a greenfield site, a utility in a country without significant nuclear infrastructure, a nuclear power plant design where FOAKE has not yet been accomplished), the schedule would extend from fifteen to seventeen years and perhaps more.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Reactor Technology, A.K.A. GENERATION III
    Current reactor technology, a.k.a. GENERATION III: Radek Škoda Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 Christ Church, Oxford RS, Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 Overview 1. ANALOGY: Old does not mean bad but… 2. GenII/III: How are they different ? 3. Resulting types… RS, Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 Nuclear reactors « Generations » Future Advanced Operating Nuclear Systems Reactors Reactors Pionner Facilities 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation I V Nuclear Policies ± B. Barré WNUSI 2011 p.81 RS, Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 FORD Thunderbird 1964 6.4 l 300 bhp (224 kW) V8 petrol engine 0 to 60 mph in 11seconds top speed 120 mph (200 km/h) economy 11 mpg ( 21 l/100km) RS, Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 FORD Mondeo 2008 FORD: changes in 45 years ELECTRONICS NEW TECHNOLOGY Track control Turbocharger LED lights lambda sensor Cruise control multizone A/C Electric mirror/window disk brakes GPS navigation progressive shock absorbers CD player 6-speed gearbox Tape player common rail USB radial tubeless tires … … SAFETY: “In Love With My Car” 5 STAR crash test ISOFIX ABS Crash zones Air bags Standard safety belts Analogy not perfect as Gen II reactors have had many upgrades/uprates which is not true for T-birds… RS, Texas A&M WNU SI 2011 Historical development of nuclear power Back to reactors: Gen III still evolve LWR with enhanced safety Fast reactors with Commercial and performance closed fuel cycle power reactors First reactors 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Atoms for Peace TMI-2 Chernobyl Generation I • Shippingport Generation
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL REPORT To
    Government of India NATIONAL REPORT to THE CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY Seventh Review Meeting of Contracting Parties, March 2017 August 2016 Government of India NATIONAL REPORT to THE CONVENTION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY Seventh Review Meeting of Contracting Parties, March 2017 August 2016 This page is intentionally left blank ii Foreword The Government of India ratified the Convention on Nuclear Safety on March 31, 2005. India started presenting its national reports from the 4th Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties of the CNS in 2008. The present national report for the 7th Review Meeting is the fourth one being submitted by India. The Report updates how Government of India continues to fulfill its obligations under Articles 6 through 19 of the Convention. The National Report was prepared in line with the guidelines contained in information circular INFCIRC/572/Rev.5 on “Guidelines regarding National Reports under the Convention on Nuclear Safety”, the summary report of the 6th Review Meeting, additional recommendations for the preparation of national reports for the 7th Review Meeting dated October 8, 2015, and the letter written by President of 7th Review Meeting of CNS to the Contracting Parties in February 2016. All land-based nuclear power plants including storage, handling and treatment facilities for radioactive materials attached to the NPP and directly related to the operation of nuclear power plants are covered in the national report. This report also addresses the national position with regard to the Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety for the implementation of the objectives of the CNS. iii This page is intentionally left blank iv CONTENTS Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Features of New Reactor Designs
    Safety features of new reactor designs Published: Apr 6, 2011 By Brian Wheeler Associate Editor Nuclear power proponents reiterate the safety of the existing Generation II plants. But the new designs proposed in the U.S. follow Generation III and Generation III+ designs that incorporate enhanced safety features that build on lessons learned from the current generation of commercial power reactors. In the U.S., several Gen III+ designs await design certification from the NRC. GE-Hitachi’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, a 1,350 MWe Gen III design, has received certification from NRC. And Westinghouse’s 1,154 MWe AP1000 is the first Gen III+ design to receive final design approval from NRC. France-based Areva is still waiting for approval on its 1,650 MWe Gen III+ EPR. So is Mitsubishi’s 1,700 MWe Gen III+ US-Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor and GE-Hitachi’s Gen III+ 1,600 MWe Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. “A lot of the philosophy between the operating Gen II fleet and the new Gen III reactor is similar with redundancy and reliability,” said Bruce Bevilacqua, vice president of New Plants Engineering for Westinghouse Electric Co. “But how we achieve some of the functions is different.” Passive Cooling A common feature on the new reactor designs is passive cooling. In the current Gen II operating fleet, operators managing an unexpected incident inject water with pumps to cool the reactor. This process is known as active cooling. The multiple pumps involved in active cooling are powered by AC power. Even if AC power is lost, the plants are designed to have multiple emergency diesel generator backups that can come online and power the pumps.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants
    applied sciences Review A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants Pablo Fernández-Arias 1,*, Diego Vergara 1 and José A. Orosa 2 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Catholic University of Ávila, C/Canteros, s/n, 05005 Avila, Spain; [email protected] 2 Department of N. S. and Marine Engineering, Universidade da Coruña, Paseo de Ronda, 51, 15011 A Coruña, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-920-251-020 Received: 3 June 2020; Accepted: 25 June 2020; Published: 27 June 2020 Featured Application: This work shows a global review with three analyses of the PWR nuclear design: (i) technical evolution; (ii) level of implementation in the world, and (iii) life extension scenario. Abstract: Nuclear energy is presented as a real option in the face of the current problem of climate change and the need to reduce CO2 emissions. The nuclear reactor design with the greatest global impact throughout history and which has the most ambitious development plans is the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Thus, a global review of such a reactor design is presented in this paper, utilizing the analysis of (i) technical aspects of the different variants of the PWR design implemented over the past eight years, (ii) the level of implementation of PWR nuclear power plants in the world, and (iii) a life extension scenario and future trends in PWR design based on current research and development (R&D) activity. To develop the second analysis, a statistical study of the implementation of the different PWR variants has been carried out.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporation of Severe Accidents in the Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants
    2011 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference - INAC 2011 Belo Horizonte,MG, Brazil, October 24-28, 2011 ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR - ABEN ISBN: 978-85-99141-04-5 INCORPORATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS IN THE LICENSING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1 1 Marco Antonio Bayout Alvarenga , Sidney Luiz Rabello 1 Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear (CNEN) Rua General Severiano, 90 22294-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Severe accidents are the result of multiple faults that occur in nuclear power plants as a consequence from the combination of latent failures and active faults, such as equipment, procedures and operator failures, which leads to partial or total melting of the reactor core. Regardless of active and latent failures related to the plant management and maintenance, aspects of the latent failures related to the plant design still remain. The lessons learned from the TMI accident in the U.S.A., Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union and, more recently, in Fukushima, Japan, suggest that severe accidents must necessarily be part of design-basis of nuclear power plants. This paper reviews the normative basis of the licensing of nuclear power plants concerning to severe accidents in countries having nuclear power plants under construction or in operation. It was addressed not only the new designs of nuclear power plants in the world, but also the design changes in plants that are in operation for decades. Included in this list are the Brazilian nuclear power plants, Angra-1, Angra-2, and Angra-3. This paper also reviews the current status of licensing in Brazil and Brazilian standards related to severe accidents.
    [Show full text]