View Single Post
Jack8rkin
Jack8rkin is offline
#5
Jan17-12, 04:41 AM
P: 52
Quote Quote by jim hardy View Post
not quite sure who's your audience..

power production comes to mind, though it sounds not rigorously correct, does it..?

the numbers get mighty big.

reactor engineers use unit of megawatt-days, MWD, and call it 'burnup'
or megaqatt-days per metric ton of uranium, MWD/MTU , still called burnup.
they are more interested in the core's nuclide inventory than in resale of energy
and burnup is convenient for tracking that.

plant engineers are more interested in how much electrical energy was produced and sold,
and that we called 'generation',
'gross generation' is what the turbo-generator produced
and 'net generation' is what went out to grid after subtracting our in-house consumption.
Thank you very much!
In fact I'm working for a nuclear engineering company. The term "burnup" is used very often here and it's usualy measured in MW day/t U as you mentioned.
I do not know why, but our guys additionally use the term that, if directly translated from Russian, sounds like "power production" or "energy generation".
One of the guys suggested "energy-producing" that he found in a certain dictionary, but I feel it sounds pretty awkward...
I was also explained that the term in question is the amount of energy produced over a cycle (the time that one core is in operation until the next reloading). The units of measurement that are used for the above magnitude is MW h (which looks pretty simlar to MWD).

The situation is that both burnup and "power production" could be used in a table with characteristcs and they need to be differentiated somehow.
My view here is that it does not look approprate if "burnup" is used two times in the same table, or in a paper, even with different units of measurements.
It may cause a lot of confusion.

Thank you again for the response and wonderful clarification.