Cold shutdown that doesn't require coolant circulation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of designing a nuclear power plant that can achieve a "cold shutdown" without the need for coolant circulation. Participants explore various aspects of reactor design, safety systems, and the implications of using passive versus active cooling methods.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question what prevents the construction of a plant that can be completely shut down without coolant circulation, suggesting that efficiency might be compromised.
  • Others propose that existing designs may already allow for the complete removal of fuel, implying that the technology could be available.
  • One participant explains that decay heat from fission products must be managed even after shutdown, detailing the role of residual heat removal (RHR) and emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) that typically require power.
  • A participant mentions the Isolation Condenser (IC) used in Fukushima Unit 1 as a nearly passive system that requires minimal active management, suggesting that larger IC designs could enhance safety.
  • Another participant discusses the AP1000 design, which relies on natural forces for cooling but still requires some form of circulation, while noting that Generation 4 designs aim for fully passive cooling systems.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of the IC system, including its relatively short cooling capacity and the potential for it to be a bottleneck in emergency situations compared to the more robust RCIC system.
  • Participants debate the effectiveness of the RCIC system, highlighting its advantages over IC, such as longer operational times and the ability to self-power using reactor steam, while also acknowledging its reliance on active components that can fail.
  • There are discussions about the contamination risks associated with the IC system, with some participants questioning the necessity of using reactor-grade water in its design.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and safety of various cooling systems, particularly between passive and active designs. There is no consensus on the best approach or the implications of existing systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current designs, such as the dependency on active systems for cooling and the challenges posed by decay heat management. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the capabilities and safety of different reactor designs.

  • #91
5 years is the requirement for long term storage/dry cask.

there are storage casks that can be used for transport/shipping. Remember a single fuel bundle or even fuel rod has drastically less heat density than a dry storage cask containing 60+ bundles. There is nothing legally that prevents casks from accepting fuel less than 5 years. The cask designer must demonstrate that the cask or container/etc is safe with the number of bundles that have been installed.

When we have failed fuel, typically we disassemble the upper tie plate and we can pull individual rods out. Each individual rod has a barcode etched in, so we record the rod numbers in that bundle, sipe the rods, look for the leaker. get video of it. We can do different ultrasonic techniques or whatever to try and measure what we can. Typically you can tell just by looking at it whether it was internal/external, and get a good idea. If more data is needed that's when you look into moving it to another facility, but in most/all cases that's all you really care about when you have a failed bundle.

Remember, all of this is done under water due to both heat and dose rates.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
48
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K