Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of Advanced Mid-Sized Reactors Regarding Passive Features, Core Damage Frequencies and Core Melt Retention Features|
|Other Contributors:||WIDER HARTMUT|
|Citation:||Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2005 p. 1-12|
|Publisher:||Nuclear Society of Slovenia 2005|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||New Light Water Reactors, whose regular safety systems are complemented by passive safety systems, are ready for the market. The special aspect of passive safety features is their actuation and functioning independent of the operator. They add significantly to reduce the core damage frequency (CDF) since the operator continues to play its independent role in actuating the regular safety devices based on modern instrumentation and control (I&C). The latter also has passive features regarding the prevention of accidents. Two reactors with significant passive features that are presently offered on the market are the AP1000 PWR and the SWR 1000 BWR. Their passive features are compared and also their core damage frequencies (CDF). The latter are also compared with those of a VVER-1000. A further discussion about the two passive plants concerns their mitigating features for severe accidents. Regarding core-melt retention both rely on in-vessel cooling of the melt. The new VVER-1000 reactor, on the other hand features a validated ex-vessel concept.|
|JRC Institute:||Energy, Transport and Climate|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.