MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040760196 · doi:10.1115/icone17-75984

Thermodynamic Considerations for a Single-Reheat Cycle SCWR

2009· article· en· W2040760196 on OpenAlexaff
M. Naidin, Romson Monichan, U. Zirn, Kamiel Gabriel, Igor Pioro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoiler feedwaterNuclear engineeringSupercritical fluidFeedwater heaterHeat recovery steam generatorCombined cycleSteam-electric power stationSurface condenserThermal power stationElectricity generationProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceThermal efficiencySteam drumRankine cycleSuperheated steamNuclear powerSteam turbineTurbineBoiler (water heating)Waste managementEngineeringMechanical engineeringChemistryThermodynamicsPower (physics)CombustionNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, there are a number of Generation IV SuperCritical Water-cooled nuclear Reactor (SCWR) concepts under development worldwide. The main objectives for developing and utilizing SCWRs are: 1) Increase gross thermal efficiency of current Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) from 30 – 35% to approximately 45 – 50%, and 2) Decrease capital and operational costs and, in doing so, decrease electrical-energy costs. SCW NPPs will have much higher operating parameters compared to current NPPs (i.e., steam pressures of about 25 MPa and steam outlet temperatures up to 625°C). Additionally, SCWRs will have a simplified flow circuit in which steam generators, steam dryers, steam separators, etc. will be eliminated. Furthermore, SCWRs operating at higher temperatures can facilitate an economical co-generation of hydrogen through thermo-chemical cycles (particularly, the copper-chlorine cycle) or direct high-temperature electrolysis. To decrease significantly the development costs of a SCW NPP, to increase its reliability, and to achieve similar high thermal efficiencies as the advanced fossil steam cycles it should be determined whether SCW NPPs can be designed with a steam-cycle arrangement that closely matches that of mature SuperCritical (SC) fossil-fired thermal power plants (including their SC-turbine technology). The state-of-the-art SC-steam cycles at fossil-fired power plants are designed with a single-steam reheat and regenerative feedwater heating. Due to that, they reach thermal steam-cycle efficiencies up to 54% (i.e., net plant efficiencies of up to 43% on a Higher Heating Value (HHV) Basis). This paper analyzes main parameters and performance in terms of thermal efficiency of a SCW NPP concept based on a direct regenerative steam cycle. To increase the thermal efficiency and to match current SC-turbine parameters, the cycle also includes a single steam-reheat stage. The cycle is comprised of: an SCWR, a SC turbine, which consists of one High-Pressure (HP) cylinder, one Intermediate-Pressure (IP) cylinder and two Low-Pressure (LP) cylinders, one deaerator, ten feedwater heaters, and pumps. Since this option includes a “nuclear” steam-reheat stage, the SCWR is based on a pressure-tube design. A thermal-performance simulation reveals that the overall thermal efficiency is approximately 50%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207