Feasibility Study of Supercritical Light Water Cooled Reactors for Electric Power Production
read more
Citations
A mixed core for supercritical water-cooled reactors
Corrosion of engineering materials in a supercritical water cooled reactor: Characterization of oxide scales on Alloy 800H and stainless steel 316
Material Performance in Supercritical Water
CFD investigation of a centrifugal compressor derived from pump technology for supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid
Status of Physics and Safety Analyses for the Liquid-Salt-Cooled Very High-Temperature Reactor (LS-VHTR)
References
Practical Surface Analysis
Nuclear reactor analysis
Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type
Forced convective heat transfer to supercritical water flowing in tubes
Related Papers (2)
Frequently Asked Questions (17)
Q2. Why are SCWRs promising advanced nuclear systems?
SCWRs are promising advanced nuclear systems because of their high thermal efficiency (i.e., about 45% vs. about 33% efficiency for current Light Water Reactors, LWRs) and considerable plant simplification.
Q3. How much burnup can be achieved in a once-through cycle?
A burnup of approximately 31.0 GWD/MTU can be achieved in a once-through cycle before the unit cell would drop below the critical point.
Q4. What is the overall neutronic effect for the re-design assembly relative to the reference design?
The overall neutronic effect for the re-design assembly relative to the reference design is an increase in the coolant volume and a decrease in the uranium mass for the assembly as a whole.
Q5. What is the maximum enrichment range for the axial power flattening scheme?
For axial power flattening, a three-zone axial enrichment scheme using a relatively tight enrichment range of 4.8-5.0-wt% U-235 would suffice.
Q6. How can a centrally located control rod array meet the end-of-life cold ?
In addition, a centrally located 12-control rod array in the fuel assembly with B4C can meet the beginning-of-life cold reactivity core shutdown condition of kinf=0.95.
Q7. What is the significant factor in going from the current pressurized water reactor (PWR?
The single most significant factor in going from the current pressurized water reactor (PWR) and BWR designs to the SCWR is the associated increase in outlet coolant temperature from 300 to 500 °C.
Q8. How do the relative errors in MCNP be calculated?
The relative errors translate into one-sigma statistical uncertainty values by multiplication of the relative error and the calculated result.
Q9. How many wt% U235 was the total effective rod enrichment for the SCWR?
The enrichments span from 3.2 to 12.4-wt% U235 resulting in an overall effective rod enrichment for the SCWR assembly of approximately 5.43-wt% U-235.
Q10. What is the process for calculating the new coolant water density profile?
The new coolant water density profile is then fed back into the MCNP model to calculate a new power profile and the search then continues for a new enrichment.
Q11. How much of the capture resonance integral was increased?
The capture resonance integral over the energy range 0.5 eV to 20 MeV increased about 6%, while the fission resonance integral decreased about 1%.
Q12. How many iterations were required to produce a relatively flat radial power profile?
Eight iterations were required to produce a relatively flat radial power profile with the minimum-to-average and peak-to-average confined to 0.95 and 1.04 for all the fuel rods in the assembly with the majority between 0.98 and 1.02.-4.0-3.5-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.50.00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Temperature (C)Te mpe ratu reC oeffi cien t (pc m/C )Figure 14.
Q13. How much flow will be passed through the water rods?
As mentioned above, about 90% of the inlet flow will be passed through the water rods with a flow rate in the water rods of about 1660 kg/s.
Q14. Why was the study focused on reducing the number of control rods per assembly?
Because of complications with the mechanical design of the fuel assembly, particular interest in the control rod worth study was focused on minimizing the number of control rods per assembly, and in particular whether or not the reference design could achieve cold shutdown with 12 centrally located rods as shown in Figure 4, or whether 16 control rods per assembly would be required (an additional 4 rods located at the corners to complete a 4x4 array).
Q15. What is the gap between the fuel rod and the assembly duct?
The gap between the assembly edge and the assembly duct or inter-assembly gap is 3.0-mm in width and is filled with fuel rod coolant.
Q16. How many axial cells are used to model the water rod water densities?
As mentioned, the coolant and water rod axial water densities were modeled with ten equal-length axial volume cells to approximate the predicted continuous water densities for the two different distributions.
Q17. How many fuel pins are typical of a PWR?
With the exception of the plenum length and fill pressure, the fuel pin dimensions are typical of 17 by 17 PWR fuel assembly pins.