archive-org.com » ORG » A » AMACAD.ORG

Total: 1374

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Introduction - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Reactors Generatio Introduction Nuclear Reactors Generation to Generation Introduction Stephen M Goldberg and Robert Rosner Many factors influence the development and deployment of nuclear reactors In this white paper we identify six of them cost effectiveness safety security and nonproliferation features grid appropriateness commercialization road map including constructability and licensability and management of the fuel cycle We also outline the evolution of nuclear reactor generations and describe current and possible future reactor proposals in light of these six key factors In our opinion incorporation of passive safety features and implementation of dry cask storage for used fuel reasonably address future safety and waste concerns The nonproliferation benefits of future designs remain unclear however and more research will be required Investment barriers have been overcome in different ways by different countries but identifying investment priorities and investors will determine in general the extent to which nuclear power remains a viable wedge of the global energy future Geopolitical factors may tip the

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1036 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • The Key Reactor Factors - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    features to ensure the safe operation of nuclear reactors as compared to active safety systems requiring intervention by human agents This is due to a variety of technical and public policy reasons including quantitative risk reductions What safety measures are proposed for new reactors Do they maintain or advance current measures Security and nonproliferation Nuclear power systems must minimize the risks of nuclear theft and terrorism Designs that will play on the international market must also minimize the risks of state sponsored nuclear weapons proliferation Concerns about dual use technologies i e technologies that were originally developed for military or other purposes and are now in commercial use are amplifying this threat What designs might mitigate these risks Grid appropriateness The capabilities of both the local and national electric grid must match the electric power a proposed reactor will deliver to the grid Grid appropriateness is determined by a combination of nameplate capacity and externalities defined by the extant electrical grid 1 How does the capacity of the electric grid impact the financial requirements long term economic feasibility and availability of a reactor Commercialization roadmap Historically the displacement of a base power source by an alternative source has been an evolutionary process rather than a sudden disruptive and radical shift Attempting to push the envelope by forcing the shift is typically economically infeasible because investors are rarely willing to bear for example the capital costs associated with the deployment of alternative technology into the existing grid architecture Commercialization roadmaps must therefore include a plausible timeline for deployment The current need for near term readiness especially in emerging technological powerhouses such as China India and the Republic of Korea is such that only those technologies that have either already been tested in the marketplace or are close to commercial demonstration are

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1037 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The History of Reactor Generations - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    reactor pressure vessel replacement Confirmatory research to investigate nuclear plant aging beyond 60 years is needed to allow these reactors to operate over such extended lifetimes Unlike Gen I and Gen II reactors Gen III reactors are regulated by NRC regulations based on 10 CFR Part 52 9 The Westinghouse 600 MW advanced PWR AP 600 was one of the first Gen III reactor designs On a parallel track GE Nuclear Energy designed the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ABWR and obtained a design certification from the NRC The first of these units went online in Japan in 1996 Other Gen III reactor designs include the Enhanced CANDU 6 which was developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited AECL and System 80 a Combustion Engineering design 10 Only four Gen III reactors all ABWRs are in operation today No Gen III plants are in service in the United States Hitachi carefully honed its construction processes during the building of the Japanese ABWRs For example the company broke ground on Kashiwazaki Kariwa Unit 7 on July 1 1993 The unit went critical on November 1 1996 and began commercial operation on July 2 1997 four years and a day after the first shovel of dirt was turned If the U S nuclear power industry can learn from Hitachi s construction techniques many billions of dollars and years of time might be saved 11 The Shaw Group and Westinghouse have adopted modular construction practices in launching a joint venture for a Lake Charles Louisiana facility that will manufacture modules for the AP 1000 Generation III Gen III reactor designs are an evolutionary development of Gen III reactors offering significant improvements in safety over Gen III reactor designs certified by the NRC in the 1990s In the United States Gen III designs must be certified by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 Examples of Gen III designs include VVER 1200 392M Reactor of the AES 2006 type Advanced CANDU Reactor ACR 1000 AP1000 based on the AP600 with increased power output European Pressurized Reactor EPR evolutionary descendant of the Framatome N4 and Siemens Power Generation Division KONVOI reactors Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor ESBWR based on the ABWR APR 1400 an advanced PWR design evolved from the U S System 80 originally known as the Korean Next Generation Reactor KNGR EU ABWR based on the ABWR with increased power output and compliance with EU safety standards Advanced PWR APWR designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MHI 12 ATMEA I a 1 000 1 160 MW PWR the result of a collaboration between MHI and AREVA 13 Manufacturers began development of Gen III systems in the 1990s by building on the operating experience of the American Japanese and Western European LWR fleets Perhaps the most significant improvement of Gen III systems over second generation designs is the incorporation in some designs of passive safety features that do not require active controls or operator intervention but instead rely on gravity or natural convection to mitigate the impact of abnormal events The inclusion of passive safety features among other improvements may help expedite the reactor certification review process and thus shorten construction schedules 14 These reactors once on line are expected to achieve higher fuel burnup than their evolutionary predecessors thus reducing fuel consumption and waste production More than two dozen Gen III reactors based on five technologies are planned for the United States Table 2 lists applications and their status as of November 2010 Table 2 New Nuclear Power Plant Applications Company Design Site under Construction Existing Unit s Existing Plant Design Operating Plant Design 15 State Status Applications accepted and docketed Ameren UE US EPR Callaway 1 unit 1 Operating PWR Westing house 4 loop 1 235 MWe MO Vendor change to AREVA from Westinghouse for new unit The company suspended its plan to build a new reactor on April 23 2009 The NRC suspended review of the combined operating license in June 2009 Detroit Edison Co ESBWR Enrico Fermi 1 unit 1 Operating BWR GE Type 4 1 039 MWe MI The only ESBWR application currently open Dominion Resources Inc APWR North Anna 1 unit 2 Operating PWR Westing house 3 loop 925 MWe and 917MWe VA Originally chose the ESBWR design On May 7 2010 Dominion said that it had selected Mitsubishi s US APWR design and will decide over the next year whether to build the 1 700 MW APWR unit Duke Energy Corp AP 1000 William States Lee III Nuclear Station 2 units Greenfield 16 NA SC Entergy Corp ESBWR River Bend 1 unit 1 Operating BWR GE Type 6 936 MWe LA On Jan 9 2009 Entergy requested the NRC to suspend the review of its combined operating license because the company is considering alternate reactor technologies Florida Power Light Co AP 1000 Turkey Point 2 units 2 Operating PWR Westing house 3 loop 693 MWe each FL New units delayed from 2018 2020 to 2023 Uprating existing nuclear units Luminant Power US APWR Comanche Peak 2 units 2 Operating PWR Westing house 4 loop 1 150 MWe each TX PWR technology Vendor changed from Westinghouse to MHI NRG Energy Inc ABWR South Texas Project STP 2 units 2 Operating PWR Westing house 4 loop 1 168 MWeeach TX Existing site has a PWR The new unit is an ABWR NuStart Energy 17 Tennessee Valley Authority TVA AP 1000 Bellefonte 2 units Greenfield NA AL TVA staff has said that completing the 1 260 MW Bellefonte Unit 1 is preferable to building an AP 1000 unit When stopped in 1988 Unit 1 was 88 complete and Unit 2 was 58 complete Over the years equipment from these sites has been used elsewhere therefore the percentage complete needs to be revised downward NuStart Energy ESBWR Grand Gulf 1 unit 1 Operating BWR GE Type 6 1 204 MWe MS On Jan 9 2009 NRC was requested to suspend the review of its combined operating license because the company is considering

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1038 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Next Steps - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    out the refueling schedule over decades The new designs do stretch out refueling schedules from 18 months to possibly 3 5 years and potentially to as long as 10 years subject to ISI testing and monitoring But longer term refueling cycles such as are commonly associated with so called battery reactors are currently left to the future The following is a list of SMRs being researched and or developed in the United States Water cooled reactors with small coated particle fuel without on site refueling AFPR PNNL Sodium cooled small reactor with extended fuel cycles 4S Westinghouse Toshiba PRISM GE ARC ARC Lead or lead bismuth cooled small reactors with extended fuel cycles HPM Hyperion LFR SSTAR and its variations such as STAR LM STAR H2 and SSTAR ANL LLNL and LANL ENHS UC Berkeley Gas cooled thermal neutron spectrum reactor MHR GA PBMR Westinghouse ANTARES AREVA U S Gas cooled fast neutron spectrum reactor with extended fuel cycle EM2 GA Salt cooled small reactor with pebble bed fuel PB AHTR UC Berkeley SmAHTR ORNL Looking Past Gen III and Gen III Nuclear scientists have left implementation of the Gen III and SMR designs to the engineers believing them to be within the current state of the art and have instead focused on nuclear alternatives commonly called Gen IV that still require considerable fundamental research Conceptually Gen IV reactors have all of the features of Gen III units as well as the ability when operating at high temperature to support economical hydrogen production thermal energy off taking and perhaps even water desalination In addition these designs include advanced actinide management 24 Gen IV reactors include High temperature water gas and liquid salt based pebble bed thermal and epithermal reactors Liquid metal cooled reactors and other reactors with more advanced cooling One such design is the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module PRISM a compact modular pool type reactor developed by GE Hitachi with passive cooling for decay heat removal Traveling wave reactors that convert fertile material into fissile fuel as they operate using the process of nuclear transmutation being developed by TerraPower This type of reactor is also based on a liquid metal primary cooling system It is also being designed with passive safety features for decay heat removal and has as a major design goal minimization of life cycle fuel costs by both substantially increasing the burnup percentage and internally breeding depleted uranium Hyperion Power Module 25 MW module According to Hyperion uranium nitride fuel would be beneficial to the physical characteristics and neutronics of the standard ceramic uranium oxide fuel in LWRs 25 Gen IV reactors are two to four decades away although some designs could be available within a decade As in the case of Gen III and Gen III designs in the United States Gen IV designs must be certified by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 based on updated regulations and regulatory guides The U S Department of Energy DOE Office of Nuclear Energy has taken responsibility for developing the science required for five Gen IV technologies Table 3 summarizes their characteristics and operating parameters and also provides information on two versions of the molten salt reactor which the United States is not currently researching Funding levels for each of the technology concepts reflects the DOE s assessment of the concept s technological development stage and its potential to meet national energy goals The Next Generation Nuclear Plant NGNP project is developing one example of a Gen IV reactor system the Very High Temperature Reactor which is configured to provide high temperature heat up to 950 C for a variety of co products including hydrogen production The NRC is working with DOE on a licensing approach The earliest potential date for a COL application is the middle of this decade Table 3 Characteristics and Operating Parameters of the Eight Generation IV Reactor Systems under Development Neutron Spectrum fast thermal Coolant Temperature C Pressure Fuel Fuel Cycle Size s MWe Uses Gas cooled fast reactors Fast Helium 850 High U 238 Closed on site 1 200 Electricity Hydrogen Lead cooled fast reactors Fast Lead or lead bismuth 480 800 Low U 238 Closed regional 20 180 300 1 200 600 1 000 Electricity Hydrogen Molten salt fast reactors Fast Fluoride salts 700 800 Low UF in salt Closed 1 000 Electricity Hydrogen Molten salt reactor Advanced high temperature reactors Thermal Fluoride salts 750 1 000 UO 2 particlesin prism Open 1 000 1 500 30 150 Hydrogen Sodium cooled fast reactors Fast Sodium 550 Low U 238 MOX Closed 300 1 500 1 000 2 000 300 700 Electricity Traveling wave reactors Fast Sodium 510 Low U 238 metal with U 235 igniter seed Open 400 1 500 Electricity Supercritical water cooled reactors Thermal or fast Water 510 625 Very high UO 2 Open thermal closed fast 1 000 1 500 Electricity Very high temperature gas reactors Thermal Helium 900 1 000 High UO 2 prism or pebbles Open 250 300 Electricity Hydrogen High 7 15 megapascals With some U 235 or Pu 239 Battery model with long cassette core life 15 20 years or replaceable reactor module Such plants can efficiently produce hydrogen because of their high operating temperature characteristic a characteristic that is also useful for providing process heat to for example refineries that would also utilize the hydrogen as a feedstock to upgrade the energy characteristics of the processed fossil fuels Used with permission from the World Nuclear Association Generation IV Reactors World Nuclear Association June 2010 http www world nuclear org info inf77 html In general Gen IV systems include full actinide recycling and on site fuel cycle facilities based on advanced aqueous pyrometallurgical or other dry processing options 26 Fast reactor research has been active in the United States and more active in China France India and the countries of the former Soviet Union 27 One rationale for closing the fuel cycle with fast reactors is the potentially limited supply

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1039 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Future - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    currently underway in Russia and several non Western states Russian and Chinese suppliers will soon meet the needs of their domestic markets and are beginning to ramp up in the expectation of large scale exports Korean industry provides components internationally and by 2013 will possess the capacity to forge even the largest nuclear plant components 30 The Republic of Korea s new very heavy forging capacity will join that of Japan JSW China China First Heavy Industries and Russia OMX Izhora Japan and Korea are already building further capacity JSW and Doosan respectively as is France Le Creusot and new capacity is planned in both the United Kingdom Sheffield Forgemasters and India Larsen Toubro GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy GEH recently announced it has signed a nuclear power plant development agreement with India s top engineering and construction company Larsen Toubro Ltd The agreement with L T is an important part of GEH s strategy to establish an extensive network of local suppliers to help build a future GEH designed Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ABWR power station in India The power station is one of several being planned by India to increase the country s nuclear generation capacity more than tenfold over the next two decades from 4 1 GW today to 60 GW by 2030 The nuclear power initiative is a key part of India s broader plan to expand its energy infrastructure to meet the country s surging demands for electricity Government Support and Partnerships The U S nuclear industry specifically GE has expressed frustration that U S private industry nuclear developers must compete against government supported foreign enterprises Nuclear power in China Russia the Republic of Korea Canada and France is essentially a government supported enterprise For example The French government owns 91 percent of AREVA 31 and 85 percent of EDF The Republic of Korea owns essentially all the technology for the KSNP design OPR 1000 Two units Shin Kori Units 3 and 4 are being constructed by Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co KHNP using the APR 1400 design model which has a capacity 1 4 times higher than the OPR 1000 These plants are owned and operated by KEPCO a company representing a number of independently operating power generating subsidiaries 32 China National Nuclear Corporation CNNC is designing the CPR1000 reactor and the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation SNPTC is designing the AP 1000 and AP 1400 33 SNPTC recently announced that ten state owned enterprises have qualified to supply equipment In Japan the government encourages companies to establish conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi have partnered to build four ABWRs in Japan However Japan s main focus is on exports The Japan Bank of International Cooperation provides partial funding for building Toshiba reactors outside of Japan and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance provides credit for the export of nuclear power plant components AECL owned by the Canadian government is funding the ACR with small contributions by industry partners Russia is a serious player financing its own

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1040 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Conclusion - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    Meetings and Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Reactors Generatio Conclusion Nuclear Reactors Generation to Generation Conclusion To quote Charles Dickens It was the best of times it was the worst of times 34 Nuclear technology has progressed in the past 60 or so years The growth of nuclear power in Asian countries and the proliferation of Asian suppliers of nuclear power technology have been immense However safety fuel cycle nonproliferation and economic hurdles remain and may become more burdensome particularly if out of the box innovations to the current state of the art in reactor technology do not reach the marketplace within the next two decades In the opinion of the authors passive safety features should be the new standard for all reactor designs going forward However the determining factor in establishing future nuclear energy parameters will likely be who wants to invest and where ENDNOTES 34 It was the epoch of belief

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1041 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • List of Acronyms - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Reactors Generatio List of Acronyms Nuclear Reactors Generation to Generation List of Acronyms ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ACR Advanced CANDU Reactor AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd AFPR Atoms for Peace Reactor AES A C Russian Atomic Power Station ANL Argonne National Laboratory ANTARES AREVA New Technology based on Advanced gas cooled REactorS APR Advanced Power Reactor APWR Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor ARC Advanced Reactor Concepts LLC B W Babcock Wilcox BWR boiling water reactor CANDU CANada Deuterium Uranium Reactor CNNC China National Nuclear Corporation CNP China s Nuclear Power Reactor Series COL combined construction and operating license CPR Chinese Pressurized Water Reactor DOE U S Department of Energy EBR I Experimental Breeder Reactor 1 EDF Électricité de France ENHS Encapsulated Nuclear Heat Source Reactor EPR European Pressurized Reactor ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor FBR fast breeder reactor FBTR Fast Breeder Test Reactor GA General Atomics GE General Electric GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy GEN I generation I reactor GEN II generation II reactor GEN III generation III reactor GEN III generation III reactor GEN IV generation IV reactor GWe gigawatt electric HPM Hyperion Power Module IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure JSW Japan Steel Works KNGR Korean Next Generation Reactor KSNP Korean Standard Nuclear Power Plant kWe one thousand watts of electric kWh kilowatt hour LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LFR lead cooled fast reactor LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LWR light water reactor MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MHR Modular Helium Reactor MOX mixed oxide MPa megapascal MW megawatt MWe megawatts electric NGNP

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1042 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Contributors - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Reactors Generatio Contributors Nuclear Reactors Generation to Generation Contributors Stephen M Goldberg is Special Assistant to the Director at Argonne National Laboratory where he is involved in several international projects on the economics of nuclear energy as well as a study on the economics of small modular reactors and supporting studies for the U S Department of Energy s International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation Previously he worked at the U S Office of Management and Budget OMB as its representative on nuclear security to the National Security Council At OMB he helped complete several major nonproliferation agreements including one in which the United States would purchase highly enriched uranium from Russia to use as nuclear fuel in its power plants Goldberg received the Executive Office of the President s highest award for his assiduous work and dedication leading to successful negotiations between the United States government and the Russian Federation He also received a series of outstanding achievement awards at the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission in recognition of efforts to provide technical and economic advice to the Commission including the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Station He is Senior Advisor to the Academy s Global Nuclear Future Initiative Robert Rosner is the William E Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Physics at the University of Chicago He is former President of UChicago Argonne LLC and former Director of Argonne National Laboratory Previously he served as Chief Scientist and Associate Laboratory Director of the Center for Physical Biological and Computational Sciences at Argonne Chairman of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago and Director of the Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University of Chicago He

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1043 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •