MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086445996 · doi:10.1115/icone16-48313

Conceptual Thermal-Design Options for Pressure-Tube SCWRs With Thermochemical Co-Generation of Hydrogen

2008· article· en· W2086445996 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Mokry, M. Naidin, Farina Baig, Yevgeniy Gospodinov, U. Zirn, Kurtulus Bakan, Igor Pioro, G.F. Naterer

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Fuel Cycle and High Level Waste Management; Computational Fluid Dynamics, Neutronics Methods and Coupled Codes; Student Paper Competition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoiler feedwaterNuclear engineeringSupercritical fluidFeedwater heaterElectricity generationEnvironmental scienceThermal power stationProcess engineeringCombined cycleHeat recovery steam generatorHydrogenSteam-electric power stationNuclear powerSurface condenserBoiler (water heating)TurbineMaterials scienceSuperheated steamWaste managementChemistryMechanical engineeringThermodynamicsEngineeringPower (physics)Nuclear 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) To increase gross thermal efficiency of current Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) from 33–35% to approximately 45–50%, and 2) To decrease the capital and operational costs and, in doing so, decrease electrical-energy costs (∼$1000 US/kW or even less). SCW NPPs will have much higher operating parameters compared to current NPPs (i.e., pressures of about 25 MPa and 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 and to increase its reliability, it should be determined whether SCW NPPs can be designed with a steam-cycle arrangement that closely matches that of mature SuperCritical (SC) fossil power plants (including their SC turbine technology). The state-of-the-art SC steam cycles in fossil power plants are designed with a single-steam reheat and regenerative feedwater heating and reach thermal steam-cycle efficiencies up to 54% (i.e., net plant efficiencies of up to 43% on a Higher Heating Value Basis). It would be beneficial if SCWRs could involve a regenerative feedwater heating and nuclear steam reheat to be able to adapt the current SC turbine technology and to achieve similar high thermal efficiencies as the advanced fossil steam cycles. The nuclear steam reheat is easier to implement inside pressure-tube or pressure-channel reactors compared to pressure-vessel reactors. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering (RDIPE or NIKIET in Russian abbreviations) are currently developing concepts of the pressure-tube SCWRs. Therefore, no-reheat, single-reheat, and double-reheat cycles of future SCW NPPs were analyzed in terms of their thermal efficiencies. On this basis, several conceptual steam-cycle arrangements of pressure-tube SCWRs, their corresponding T-s diagrams and steam-cycle thermal efficiencies are presented in this paper together with major parameters of the copper-chlorine cycle for the co-generation of hydrogen. Also, bulk-fluid temperature and thermophysical properties profiles were calculated for a non-uniform cosine Axial Heat-Flux Distribution (AHFD) along a generic SCWR fuel channel, for reference purposes.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Fuel Cycle and High Level Waste Management; Computational Fluid Dynamics, Neutronics Methods and Coupled Codes; Student Paper CompetitionSame topicHeat transfer and supercritical fluidsFrench-language works237,207