I feel as though there's this huge whirlpool, slowly sucking us all to use the ACR1000 as the next nuclear plant. Although we'd all be happier using the AP1000, we'll never get one.
The ACR1000 continues the Candu tradition of being a 'plumber's nightmare'. You can read all about it at this site. It has the same layout as an AP1000, except they allow two reactors to be siamese twins.
The only sop to modernity is the use of light water in the pressure tubes. Since Candu's are 'neutron starved', this can only be done by jumping up the fuel with some extra juice. They use a fuel somewhere around 2% of the hot stuff. The fuel can be jacked up with the ground-up remains of old Soviet nuclear bombs.
I believe they just use a hyped-up Darlington design. If they increase the coolant flow, I'll feel sorry for them. They never really figured out the physics of why the Darlington fuel channels have such a horrible vibration instability. I know, but I'm telling anyone. :) This new one has more fuel channels jammed in, and could be a real musical instrument!
So, let's hear it for the ACR1000, our only choice!
3 comments:
Interesting read on the CANDU....
...I am writing as a former OPG research scientist, with 23 years experience in nuclear operations, to suggest that any further investment in generating capacity based on the CANDU design would be a serious mistake. I have put together a summary of my reasons for rejecting CANDU technology in an attachment to this letter and would ask that this material be considered by the OPA.....
http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/green2.htm
http://www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca/green1.htm
Start writing a blog!
The biggest problem with Candus in Ontario is who is operating then. Fortunately after a decade of sole searching OPG has actually admitted they aren't very good and are subsequently improving. You can see it in their ratings and their capacity factors. None of the reactors that are currently being considered have ever been built. None. One of them is currently under construction in Finland and it is behind schedule and over budget. AECL probably has the best record in the world of any company of building on budget and on time. AECL build Pickering A, Ontario Hydro designed and built the rest of the reactors in Ontario. (I know 2 companies designing and building similar reactors in the same small province that's crazy. Fortunately OPG has no intention of repeating that error again.)
Ideally we wouldn't have to build any new reactors. However we are a far from ideal society. We are energy pigs. So something has to be built. If you’re going to spin the wheel, which we are, you might as we shop Canadian.
Problems with candu's:
Pressure tube failure after 35 years, solution costly rebuild mid life, no current way to avoid this.
Feeder thinning, future Candu's feeders should be good for the 60 year life of the plant.
Boiler wear: good chemical control and the boilers should last the life of the plant.
Worst accident on a candu. 100% header breaks at high power. Saftey systems should stop all fuel failures. (There’s actually a stagnation break as well but that one is very theoretical in that one they expect fuel failures in 1 channel 0.25% of the core.)
Worst accident on a BWR or PWR, caldron breach. Expect massive fuel failures and fuel slag to spill onto the floor. Sometimes a lot of little pipes in a pool of cool water are much better than one big pot in air.
Worst thing about Ontario going all Candu. It allowed incompetent management to blame the technology for all of it’s problems.
Best run reactors in the world by country. 1st Korea, Candu’s and home grown PWR(based on American design). 2nd USA, PWRs and BWR. 3rd India Candu’s and home grown reactors based on Candu design.
There is no easy choise.
Post a Comment