The evolution of nuclear power plant design

1961 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Applied Research ◽  
Capital Cost ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Future Cost ◽  
Heat Cycle ◽  
Defence Budget ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Vital Factor

Tercentenary Lecture delivered by Sir Christopher Hinton, F. R.S ., at 10.1 5 a.m. on Wednesday 20 July 1960 at Beveridge Hall, University of London Applied research on nuclear power is expensive. It can no longer be reasonably charged to a Defence Budget but must be justified by immediate or prospective savings as compared with alternative industrial techniques which are available or likely to be available. There have been important changes since the British Nuclear Power Programme was first launched in 1955, with the result that nuclear power from the plants now being ordered will cost about 30 per cent more than from the best conventional plants built concurrently and operated under similar load conditions. The Programme is still justified despite changed circumstances. Heat Cycle Temperatures and Break-even Nuclear power will be cheaper when higher temperatures are achieved in the heat cycle. Advances in technology are still bringing down the cost of power generation in the conventional field, so that the point at which the cost of nuclear power breaks even with, and then falls below, the cost of conventional power is determined by the convergence of two falling curves of cost. Conventional Plant The use of higher temperatures and the practicability (provided by the use of higher pressures) of using re-heat, has increased thermal efficiencies and has combined with the reduced capital cost to reduce the cost of generation. The continuance of the downward trend of capital cost will be affected by considerations of design and operation. The future cost of coal is a vital factor in any prediction of the future cost of conventional power, but the forecast of future coal costs is far more uncertain than the forecasts of capital cost and thermal efficiency, either in the conventional or the nuclear fields.

Cost Breakdown of 2.5D and 3D Packaging

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (DPC) ◽  
pp. 000324-000341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chet Palesko ◽  
Amy Palesko
Keyword(s):  
High Performance ◽  
Cost Model ◽  
High Price ◽  
Future Cost ◽  
The Future ◽  
3D Packaging ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Design Characteristics ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Cost

2.5D and 3D packaging can provide significant size and performance advantages over other packaging technologies. However, these advantages usually come at a high price. Since 2.5D and 3D packaging costs are significant, today they are only used if no other option can meet the product requirements, and most of these applications are relatively low volume. Products such as high end FPGAs, high performance GPUs, and high bandwidth memory are great applications but none have volume requirements close to mobile phones or tablets. Without the benefit of volume production, the cost of 2.5D and 3D packaging could stay high for a long time. In this paper, we will provide cost model results of a complete 2.5D and 3D manufacturing process. Each manufacturing activity will be included and the key cost drivers will be analyzed regarding future cost reductions. Expensive activities that are well down the learning curve (RDL creation, CMP, etc.) will probably not change much in the future. However, expensive activities that are new to this process (DRIE, temporary bond/debond, etc.) provide good opportunities for cost reduction. A variety of scenarios will be included to understand how design characteristics impact the cost. Understanding how and why the dominant cost components will change over time is critical to accurately predicting the future cost of 2.5D and 3D packaging.

2025 Nuclear Code: The Vision for the Future of ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale E. Matthews ◽  
Ralph S. Hill ◽  
Charles W. Bruny
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Fusion Energy ◽  
Life Cycle Management ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Energy Devices ◽  
The Future

ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards are used worldwide in the construction, inspection, and repair of commercial nuclear power plants. As the industry looks to the future of nuclear power and some of the new plant designs under development, there will be some significant departures from the current light water reactor (LWR) technology. Some examples are gas-cooled and liquid metal-cooled high temperature reactors (HTRs), small modular reactors (SMRs), and fusion energy devices that are currently under development. Many of these designs will have different safety challenges from the current LWR fleet. Variations of the current LWR technology are also expected to remain in use for the foreseeable future. Worldwide, many LWRs are planned or are already under construction. However, technology for construction of these plants has advanced considerably since most of the current construction codes were written. As a result, many modern design and fabrication methods available today, which provide both safety and economic benefits, cannot be fully utilized since they are not addressed by Code rules. For ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards to maintain and enhance their position as the worldwide leader in the nuclear power industry, they will need to be modernized to address these items. Accordingly, the ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards organizations have initiated the “2025 Nuclear Code” initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to modernize all aspects of ASME’s Nuclear Codes and Standards to adopt new technologies in plant design, construction, and life cycle management. Examples include modernized finite element analysis and fatigue rules, and incorporation of probabilistic and risk-informed methodology. This paper will present the vision for the 2025 ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards and will discuss some of the key elements that are being considered.

Sui costi di generazione dell'energia elettrica da fonte nucleare

2011 ◽  
pp. 141-65
Author(s):  
Carlo Mari
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Massachusetts Institute ◽  
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology ◽  
Cost Of Electricity ◽  
The Future ◽  
Fattori Di Rischio ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
The Cost

Viene presentata un'analisi dei costi di generazione dell'energia elettrica da fonte nucleare e da fonti fossili (carbone e gas naturale) effettuata sui dati tecnici pubblicati nell'ultimo rapporto IEA-NEA "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity" (Edizione 2010). Lo studio č finalizzato a determinare il "Levelised Cost of Electricity" in un contesto di libero mercato e secondo logiche privatistiche. A fini comparativi e per completare il quadro di riferimento, il lavoro include anche una valutazione dei costi di generazione basata sui dati tecnici ed economici statunitensi riportati in "Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power" (2009) del Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Le valutazioni del MIT sembrano infatti sottostimare i costi di generazione specie se confrontati con i valori riportati nel precedente rapporto "The Future of Nuclear Power" (2003). I risultati mostrano che in un contesto di politica energetica caratterizzata da incertezza nei programmi di sviluppo e nelle modalitŕ di attuazione, l'energia da fonte nucleare non sembra possedere quei requisiti di competitivitŕ economica necessari a prevederne un utilizzo significativo nel prossimo futuro. Nel lavoro, inoltre, viene sviluppata un'analisi di sensitivitŕ rispetto alle grandezze finanziarie più rilevanti, quali il livello di rischiositŕ percepita dagli investitori e catturata dai valori del costo opportunitŕ del capitale, e il rapporto di indebitamento iniziale, nel tentativo di individuare le principali criticitŕ e l'incidenza dei singoli fattori di rischio che, in un contesto di libero mercato, influenzano la competitivitŕ della fonte nucleare. Una sezione dedicata alla valutazione dei costi "sociali" di generazione conclude il lavoro.

scholarly journals A Study of a High Temperature Nuclear Power Plant Incorporating a Non-Integrated Indirect Cycle Gas Turbine

1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Sarlos ◽  
W. Helbling ◽  
E. Zollinger ◽  
N. Gregory ◽  
H. Luchsinger
Keyword(s):  
High Temperature ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Gas Turbine ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Swiss Federal Institute ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Federal Institute ◽  
Demonstration Plant ◽  
The Cost

In connection with the HHT-Project, the Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor Research has performed a study of a 1640-MWth HTR-plant incorporating a non-integrated indirect cycle gas turbine with two-stage intercooling, as a possibility of simplifying and reducing the cost of the HHT-Demonstration plant. In this paper, the plant design is described and compared with the HHT-demonstration plant (a CCGT integrated plant with single stage intercooling). Also included is an evaluation of the various advantages and disadvantages of this design together with the presentation of some of the sensitivity results.

scholarly journals Capital Cost Estimation for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Robb Stewart ◽  
Koroush Shirvan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Capital Cost ◽  
Reactor Power ◽  
Passive Safety ◽  
Cost Overrun ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Pressurized Water

The first-of-a-kind (FOAK) nuclear plants built in the last 20 years are on average 2X over budget and schedule. One of the nuclear industry’s proposed remedies is the small modular reactor (SMR). SMR designs leverage five factors to be more economically competitive than large size reactors: 1) multiple units at a site; 2) increased factory production and learning; 3) reduced construction schedules; 4) plant design simplification and 5) unit timing. There are currently no studies that quantitatively account for these factors and compare different SMR architectures with Gen III+ large plants. This work presents a nuclear plant cost estimating methodology using a detailed bottoms-up approach for over 200 structures, systems, and components. The results compare relative cost for two large pressurized water reactors, one with active safety and one with passive safety, to two SMR designs, one with multiple reactor power modules and one with a single reactor module. Passive safety systems showed noticeable savings at both the large scale and small modular scale reactors. The power uprating of a SMR by 20% resulted in ~15% savings in the overnight capital cost. Overall, if built by an inexperience vendor and work force, the two SMRs’ overnight cost were higher than large reactors since significant on-site labor still remains while losing economy of scale. However, the single-unit SMR had significantly less total person-hours of onsite labor, and if built by an experienced vendor and workforce, its overnight construction cost showed potential to be competitive and avoid cost-overrun risks associated with megaprojects.

Use of HFE Guidance for the Review of Nuclear Power Plants

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
John O’Hara ◽  
Stephen Fleger
Keyword(s):  
Interface Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Program Review ◽  
Human Factors Engineering ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluates the human factors engineering (HFE) of nuclear power plant design and operations to protect public health and safety. The HFE safety reviews encompass both the design process and its products. The NRC staff performs the reviews using the detailed guidance contained in two key documents: the HFE Program Review Model (NUREG-0711) and the Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700). This paper will describe these two documents and the method used to develop them. As the NRC is committed to the periodic update and improvement of the guidance to ensure that they remain state-of-the-art design evaluation tools, we will discuss the topics being addressed in support of future updates as well.

The Mitigation of the French Nuclear Option: New Industrial Realism and Technical Democracy

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Finon
Keyword(s):  
Waste Management ◽  
Electricity Markets ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Public Inquiry ◽  
The Future ◽  
Parliamentary Committee ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Phase Out

Nuclear phase-out policies and the European obligation to liberalise electricity markets could put the French nuclear option dramatically at risk by influencing social preferences or by constraining power producers' investment choices in the future. So far, the particular institutional set-up which has allowed the efficient build-up and operation of several series of standardised reactors preserves the stability of the main elements of the option. However, important adaptations to the evolving industrial and political environment occur and contribute to changing the option. Some institutional changes (such as local public inquiry, creation of a Parliamentary committee, independence of safety authorities) and divergence between industrial interests already allow debates on internal options such as reprocessing, type of waste management deposits, ordering of an advanced PWR. These changes improve the cost transparency, even if internalisation of nuclear externalities (cost of insurance, provisions for waste management) is still incomplete. However, when effective, this internalisation would not affect definitively the competitive position of the nuclear production because of the parallel internalisation of CO2 externalities from fossil fuel power generation in the official rationale. Consequently the real issue for the future of the nuclear option in France remains the preservation of social acceptability in the perception of nuclear risks.

Externally-Fired Combined Cycle Repowering of Existing Steam Plants

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian L. Vandervort ◽  
Mohammed R. Bary ◽  
Larry E. Stoddard ◽  
Steven T. Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Heat Exchanger ◽  
Steam Turbine ◽  
Gas Turbine ◽  
High Efficiency ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Operating Experience ◽  
Capital Cost ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Generating Capacity

The Externally-Fired Combined Cycle (EFCC) is an attractive emerging technology for powering high efficiency combined gas and steam turbine cycles with coal or other ash bearing fuels. The key near-term market for the EFCC is likely to be repowering of existing coal fueled power generation units. Repowering with an EFCC system offers utilities the ability to improve efficiency of existing plants by 25 to 60 percent, while doubling generating capacity. Repowering can be accomplished at a capital cost half that of a new facility of similar capacity. Furthermore, the EFCC concept does not require complex chemical processes, and is therefore very compatible with existing utility operating experience. In the EFCC, the heat input to the gas turbine is supplied indirectly through a ceramic heat exchanger. The heat exchanger, coupled with an atmospheric coal combustor and auxiliary components, replaces the conventional gas turbine combustor. Addition of a steam bottoming plant and exhaust cleanup system completes the combined cycle. A conceptual design has been developed for EFCC repowering of an existing reference plant which operates with a 48 MW steam turbine at a net plant efficiency of 25 percent. The repowered plant design uses a General Electric LM6000 gas turbine package in the EFCC power island. Topping the existing steam plant with the coal fueled EFCC improves efficiency to nearly 40 percent. The capital cost of this upgrade is 1,090/kW. When combined with the high efficiency, the low cost of coal, and low operation and maintenance costs, the resulting cost of electricity is competitive for base load generation.

Deadlock or new opening? Current state and prospects for development of Lithuanian-Belarusian relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-141
Author(s):  
Justyna Olędzka
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Future ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is to discuss the trajectory of Belarusian-Lithuanian relations with a particular focus on the period after the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, which resulted in a change in international relations in the region. This was the moment that redefined the Lithuanian-Belarusian relations, which until 2020 were satisfactory for both sides (especially in the economic aspect). However, Lithuania began to pursue a reactive policy of promoting the democratisation of Belarus and provided multi-level support to Belarusian opposition forces. The current problems in bilateral relations (e.g., the future of Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant located in Astravyets) have been put on the agenda for discussion at the EU level, while the instruments of a hybrid conflict in the form of an influx of immigrants into Lithuania, controlled by the Belarusian regime, have become a key issue for the future prospects of relations between Belarus and Lithuania.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document