Comparing APWR and PWR Core/Fuel Data

  • Thread starter Thread starter friendboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data
Click For Summary
The significant difference between Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors (APWR) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) lies in their core design and nuclear fuel specifications, which can affect calculations of nuclear flux and burn-up. While PWR data may provide a foundational understanding, it may not be directly applicable to APWR due to these differences. The AP1000, a type of APWR, features a 14-ft active fuel length and utilizes standard 17x17 fuel rods with a 14-ft pellet stack. Relevant technical specifications can be found in the NRC's Design Control Document, specifically in sections 4.1 and 4.2. For further details, users can access the NRC website and the provided link for the AP1000 datasheet.
friendboy
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
What's the significant difference between APWR and PWR in terms of core and nuclear fuel, I mean, if we want to calculate nuclear flux and burn up of APWR, can we use PWR data instead?

btw, anyone knows a site that provides AP1000 datasheet or specification?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The AP1000 uses a 14-ft (4.27 m) active fuel length, similar to that used by South Texas and EdF 1300 MWe plants. The fuel rods are more or less standard 17x17 fuel with 14-ft pellet stack.

One can find technical information on the NRC website in the Design Control Document, particularly sections 4.1 and 4.2.

For the AP1000, see
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML083230868
Items 134 - 139.
 
Last edited:
Astronuc said:
The AP1000 uses a 14-ft (4.27 m) active fuel length, similar to that used by South Texas and EdF 1300 MWe plants. The fuel rods are more or less standard 17x17 fuel with 14-ft pellet stack.

One can find technical information on the NRC website in the Design Control Document, particularly sections 4.1 and 4.2.

Thanks :)
 
What type of energy is actually stored inside an atom? When an atom is split—such as in a nuclear explosion—it releases enormous energy, much of it in the form of gamma-ray electromagnetic radiation. Given this, is it correct to say that the energy stored in the atom is fundamentally electromagnetic (EM) energy? If not, how should we properly understand the nature of the energy that binds the nucleus and is released during fission?

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
15K
Replies
10
Views
13K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
5K