Nuclear Pictures

Pebble-bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) (Eskom): The PBMR, which uses helium as a coolant, is part of the HTGR family of reactors and thus a product of a lengthy history of research, notably in Germany and the United States. More recently the design has been promoted and revised by the South African utility Eskom and its affiliates. Westinghouse BNFL is a minority investor. Prototype variations of the PBMR are now operating in China and Japan. Eskom has received administrative approval to build a prototype PBMR in South Africa, but has also been delayed in implementation by judicial rulings regarding the reactor’s potential environmental impact. Certification procedures in the U.S. have slowed, but never have been abandoned. At around 165 MWe the PBMR is one of the smallest reactors now proposed for the commercial market. This is considered a marketing advantage because new small reactors require lower capital investments than larger new units. Several PBMRs might be built at a single site as local power demand requires. Small size has been viewed as a regulatory disadvantage because most licensing regulations (at least formerly) required separate licenses for each unit at a site. The NRC also does not claim the same familiarity with the design that it has with LWRs. Fuels used in the PBMR would include more highly enriched uranium than is now used in LWR designs. The PBMR design is considered a possible contender for the U.S. Department of Energy's Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program in Idaho. China has also indicated interest in building its own variation of the PBMR. China and South Africa have also discussed cooperation in their efforts.

7 files, last one added on Jul 19, 2006
Album viewed 387 times

AP100013 (Westinghouse BNFL): Quite often when a reactor is named, its name includes digits such as the "1000" in the AP1000. This usually indicates the initial electricity generating capacity of the design, in this case 1000 MWe. Seldom do the digits indicate the present design capacity as the design evolves. The most recent AP1000 design has been bid in China with a 1175 MW-capacity. The AP1000 is an enlargement of the AP600, designed to almost double the reactor's target output without proportionately increasing the total cost of building the reactor. Westinghouse anticipates that operating costs are anticipated to be below the average of reactors now operating in the United States. While Westinghouse BNFL owns rights to several other designs, the AP1000 is the principal product that the company now promotes in the United States for near term construction. The AP1000 is a PWR with innovative, passive safety features and a much simplified design intended to reduce the reactor’s material and construction costs while improving operational safety. One consortium of nine utilities called NuStart Energy promotes the AP1000 in the United States and has informed the NRC that it intends to apply for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for the design. This is not a commitment to build the design. Westinghouse submitted a bid in early 2005 to build as many as four AP1000s at two sites in China.

7 files, last one added on Jul 19, 2006
Album viewed 448 times

ESBWR (Economic Simplified, Boiling Water Reactor) (General Electric): The ESBWR15 is a new simplified BWR design promoted by General Electric and some allied firms. The ESBWR constitutes an evolution and merging of several earlier designs including the ABWR that are now less actively pursued by GE and other vendors beyond the exceptional case of Bellefonte in Alabama. The intent of the new design, which includes new passive safety features, is to cut construction and operating costs significantly from earlier ABWR designs. GE and others are investing heavily in the ESBWR though the design might not be available for deployment for several years. The ESBWR’s builders however anticipate that the design will be available in time to meet any potential construction targets in the U.S. The nine-utility NuStart Energy group promotes the ESBWR as well as the AP1000 design. NuStart has informed the NRC that it intends to apply for a COL for the ESBWR in addition to any AP1000 application. Dominion Resources is also evaluating the ESBWR for its North Anna plant in Virginia but has not declared its COL intentions for the design.

3 files, last one added on Jul 19, 2006
Album viewed 580 times

Siedewasser Reaktor (SWR-1000) (Framatome ANP): The SWR-1000 is a Framatome ANP design for an advanced BWR. Framatome ANP was created through the merger of the French nuclear vendor Framatome and the nuclear power assets of the German firm Siemens. The SWR-1000 was originally designed by Siemens. Framatome ANP began SWR-1000 pre-certification with the NRC several years ago. The SWR-1000 presently has no U.S. utility sponsor and is no longer being actively promoted by Framatome which now emphasizes its EPR design. Literature on the design notes the reactor's passive safety features. Passive safety also potentially mean lower construction costs though this has not been as heavily promoted by Framatome.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times

ACR700 (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited): AECL's "Advanced CANDU Reactor" ACR70016 has been developed over a lengthy period of time and is considered by its vendor to be an evolution from AECL's internationally successful CANDU line of PHWRs. CANDU reactors and their Indian derivatives have been more of a commercial success than any other line of power reactors except the LWRs. One of the innovations in the ACR700, compared to earlier CANDU designs, is that heavy water is used only as a moderator in the reactor. Light water is used as the coolant. Earlier CANDU designs used heavy water both as a moderator and as a coolant. This change makes it debatable whether the ACR700 is a PHWR, a PWR, or a hybrid between the two designs. AECL has aggressively marketed the ACR700 offering low prices, short construction periods, and favorable financial terms. As is the case for most non-LWR reactors, most U.S. utilities, nuclear engineers, and regulators have only limited working familiarity with the design. Interest was initially shown by Dominion Resources regarding possible construction at North Anna (Virginia) as well as by utilities in several international locations, notably in Canada and the United Kingdom. Dominion has recently switched to the ESBWR design for North Anna in anticipation of the slow regulatory approval process for the innovative Canadian-design. AECL has subsequently slowed its efforts to certify the ACR700 in the United States though the firm still intends to begin the certification process toward the end of 2005. AECL announcements indicate increased interest in a larger ACR1000 design.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times

Gas-turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) (General Atomic): The GT-MHR is an HTGR design developed primarily by the U.S. firm, General Atomic. The most advanced plans for GT-MHR development relate to building reactors in Russia to assist in the disposal of surplus plutonium supplies. Parallel plans for commercial power reactors would use uranium-based fuels enriched to as high as 19.9 percent U-235 content. This would keep the fuel just below the 20 percent enrichment that defines highly enriched uranium. In initial GT-MHR designs, the conversion of the energy to electricity would involve sending the heated helium coolant directly to a gas turbine. There has been concern regarding untested, though non-nuclear aspects of this generation process. This has led potential sponsors to advocate similar ideas involving less innovative heat transfer mechanisms prior to generating electricity or commercial heat. The U.S. utility, Entergy, has participated in GT-MHR development and promotion and has used the name "Freedom Reactor" for the design. Because coolant temperatures arising from HTGRs are much higher than from LWRs, the design is viewed as an improved commercial heat source. There has been particular attention paid to the design's potential in the production of hydrogen from water. The GT-MHR is considered a potential contender for the US Department of Energy's Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times

International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) (Westinghouse BNFL led consortium): Westinghouse BNFL has promoted the IRIS reactor design as a significant simplification and innovation in PWR technology. The reactor design is smaller than most operating PWRs and would be much simplified. The IRIS reactor includes features intended to avoid loss of coolant accidents. Pre-certification is proceeding. The IRIS reactor may show potential during the next decade. Certification could precede commercial availability. IRIS has a targeted 2010 certification completion date. IRIS presently has no utility sponsor in the U.S.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times

European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) (Framatome ANP): Framatome ANP announced in early 2005 that it would market its EPR design in the United States and has recently begun pre-certification. The EPR is a conventional, though advanced, PWR in which components have been simplified and considerable emphasis is placed on reactor safety. The design is now being built in Finland with a target completion during 2009. The French government also proposes building an additional EPR at Flamanville 3 in France. Present French policy suggests that additional EPRs might replace additional commercial reactors now operating in France starting in the late 2010s. The EPR was bid in early 2005 in competition to the AP1000 for four reactors at two sites in China. The proposed size for the EPR has varied considerably over time but might be around 1600 MWe. Earlier designs were as large as 1750 MWe. In either case the EPR would be the largest design now under consideration in the United States. Some redesign might occur for the U.S. market. Framatome had earlier indicated that U.S. certification for the EPR would occur after European development proceeded. This decision has since been made and the U.S. utility Duke Power is evaluating the EPR, along with the AP1000 and ESBWR, for a COL application process that began during 2005. A formal COL application by Duke would occur several years later though design selection might occur earlier.

4 files, last one added on Aug 05, 2006
Album viewed 321 times

ACR1000 (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited): While AECL has promoted its ACR700 design, an ACR1000 has been designed as well. If the scale economies attributed by Westinghouse BNFL to its AP series and by GE's its ABWR/ESBWR series are valid, one might anticipate parallel, cost-lowering results for the ACR series. Advertised costs for the ACR700 are already as low as any design proposed in the United States for the near term. Promised construction times, as short as three years, would set modern records for large reactor completion. When Dominion Resources indicated in late 2004 that it was no longer pursuing ACR700 construction at North Anna, AECL stated that while it will continue with ACR700 certification, perhaps in late 2005, more effort would be placed on the 1100+ MWe ACR1000 design.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times

4S (Toshiba): The 4S is a very small molten sodium-cooled reactor designed by Toshiba. The reactor presently being considered is 10 MWe though larger and smaller versions exist. The 4S is designed for use in remote locations and to operate for decades without refueling. This has led to the reactor to be compared with a nuclear “battery”. The use of molten-sodium as a coolant is not particularly new, having been used in many FBR designs. Sodium-coolants allow for higher reactor temperatures. Potential fuels are uranium or uranium-plutonium alloys. When uranium is the likely fuel in the United States, present plans call for 19.9 percent fuel enrichment. This high level of enrichment is one reason the reactor could be able to operate for extended periods without refueling. Toward the end of 2004 the town of Galena, Alaska granted initial approval for Toshiba to build a 4S reactor in that remote location. Original plans called for completion in 2010 though it was acknowledged that this was ambitious. Galena and Toshiba officials discussed their plans with the NRC in early February 2005. The NRC indicated that it was not familiar with the 4S design and that design certification (at vendor expense) might be costly and prolonged. Design certification can be incorporated in the COL process thus it is not clear if a separate design certification will be pursued, if the project continues.

0 files
Album viewed 0 times