Similar articles

Abstract: The design philosophy, overall performance, safety, and economy of three typical generation III (GIII) pressurized water reactors, EPR, AES2006, and CAP1400, are analyzed comprehensively in this paper. Based on comparison with and the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident, we forecast a future reactor for China’s commercial nuclear power plant. Moreover, we put forward important technological fields of GIII nuclear power plants to which attention should be paid, including the enhancement of defense in depth, defense against extreme external events, severe accident mitigation, design simplification and standardization, improvement in economic competitiveness, load following capability, and adaptation to climate change.

世界三代压水堆主要机型技术分析

[1]Areva, 2014. Status Report 78–The Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR). Available from https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/EPR.pdf [Accessed on Dec. 20, 2015].

[2]ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), 2012. Forging a New Nuclear Safety Construct. ASME, USA.

[3]Bittermann, D., Krugmann, U., Azarian, G., 2001. EPR accident scenarios and provisions. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 207(1):49-57.

[4]Bonhomme, N., 1999. Systems organization for the European pressurized water reactor (EPR). Nuclear Engineering and Design, 187(1):71-78.

[5]Bouteille, F., Azarian, G., Bittermann, D., et al., 2006. The EPR overall approach for severe accident mitigation. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236(14-16):1464-1470.

[6]EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2013. Utility Requirement Document, 12th Revision. EPRI, USA.

[7]EUR Organization, 2001. The European Utility Requirement Document (EUR), Revision C. EUR Organization.

[8]Fischer, M., 2004. The severe accident mitigation concept and the design measures for core melt retention of the European pressurized reactor (EPR). Nuclear Engineering and Design, 230(1-3):169-180.

[9]Fischer, M., Herbst, O., Schmidt, H., 2005. Demonstration of the heat removing capabilities of the EPR core catcher. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 235(10-12):1189-1200.

[10]GIF (Generation IV International Forum), 2014. Available from https://www.gen-4.org [Accessed on Jan. 3, 2016].

[11]IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2009. Passive Safety Systems and Natural Circulation in Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA, Austria.

[12]IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2012. SSR-2/1, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design Specific Safety Requirement. IAEA, Austria.

[13]IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2015. Available from http://www.iaea.org/pris/ [Accessed on Jan. 10, 2016].

[14]Juhn, P.E., Kupitz, J., Cleveland, J., 2000. IAEA activities on passive safety systems and overview of international development. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 201(1):41-59.

[15]Knudson, D.L., Rempe, J.L., Condie, K.G., et al., 2004. Late-phase melt conditions affecting the potential for in-vessel retention in high power reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 230(1-3):133-150.

[16]Kolchinsky, D., 2013. AES 2006: New Design with VVER Reactor and INPRO Methodology. INPRO Forum, Vienna, Austria.

[17]Krepper, E., Beyer, M., 2010. Experimental and numerical investigations of natural circulation phenomena in passive safety systems for decay heat removal in large pools. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 240(10):3170-3177.

[18]Mayousse, M., 2013. Drivers and approach for the design of the EPR™ reactor. IAEA, Technical Meeting on Technology Assessment for Embarking Countries, Vienna, Austria.

[19]MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China), 2012. “Twelfth Five-Year Plan” and “2020 Vision of Nuclear Safety and Radioactive Pollution Prevention and Mitigation”. MEP, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

[20]Mousavian, S.K., D’Auria, F., Salehi, M.A., 2004. Analysis of natural circulation phenomena in VVER-1000. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 229(1):25-46.

[21]OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2014. Nuclear Roadmap. OECD.

[22]Rempe, J.L., Knudson, D.L., Condie, K.G., et al., 2002. In-vessel Retention Strategy for High Power Reactors. Report No. INEEL/EXT-02-01291. Annual Report.

[23]Rosatom, 2014. Status Report 108–VVER-1200 (V-491). Available from https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/VVER-1200(V-491).pdf [Accessed on Jan. 4, 2016].

[24]SNERDI (Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute), 2013. General Report of CAP1400 Preliminary Design. SNERDI, China (in Chinese).

[25]Steinwarz, W., Alemberti, A., Häfner, W., et al., 2001. Investigations on the phenomenology of ex-vessel core melt behavior. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 209(1-3):139-146.

[26]Tujikura, Y., Oshibe, T., Kijima, K., et al., 2000. Development of passive safety systems for next generation PWR in Japan. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 201(1):61-70.

[27]Westinghouse, 2014. Status Report 81–Advanced Passive PWR (AP 1000). Available from https://aris.iaea.org/ PDF/AP1000.pdf [Accessed on Dec. 20, 2015].

[28]Wittmaack, R., 2002. Simulation of free-surface flows with heat transfer and phase transitions and application to corium spreading in the EPR. Journal of Nuclear Technology, 137(3):194-212.

[29]Zang, X.N., Guo, W.J., Huang, B., et al., 2001. Transient analyses of the passive residual heat removal system. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 206(1):105-111.

[30]Zhang, Y.P., Qiu, S.Z., Su, G.H., et al., 2012. Design and transient analyses of emergency passive residual heat removal system of CPR1000. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 242:247-256.

[31]Zio, E., Di Maio, F., Tong, J., 2010. Safety margins confidence estimation for a passive residual heat removal system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(8):828-836.