Steam-Reheat Option for SCWRs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concepts of nuclear reactors cooled with water at supercritical pressures were studied as early as the 1950s and 1960s in the USA and Russia. After a 30-year break, the idea of developing nuclear reactors cooled with SuperCritical Water (SCW) became attractive again as the ultimate development path for water cooling. The main objectives of using SCW in nuclear reactors are: 1) to increase the thermal efficiency of modern Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) from 30 – 35% to about 45 – 48%, and 2) to decrease capital and operational costs and hence decrease electrical energy costs. SCW NPPs will have much higher operating parameters compared to modern NPPs (pressure about 25 MPa and outlet temperature up to 625°C), and a simplified flow circuit, in which steam generators, steam dryers, steam separators, etc., can be eliminated. Also, higher SCW temperatures allow direct thermo-chemical production of hydrogen at low cost, due to increased reaction rates. To achieve higher thermal efficiency a nuclear steam reheat has to be introduced inside a reactor. Currently, all supercritical turbines at thermal power plants have a steam-reheat option. In the 60’s and 70’s, Russia, USA and some other countries have developed and implemented the nuclear steam reheat at subcritical-pressure in experimental reactors. There are some papers, mainly published in the open Russian literature, devoted to this important experience. Pressure-tube or pressure-channel SCW nuclear-reactor concepts are being developed in Canada and Russia for some time. It is obvious that implementation of the nuclear steam reheat at subcritical pressures in pressure-tube reactors is easier task than that in pressure-vessel reactors. Some design features related to the nuclear steam reheat are discussed in this paper. The main conclusion is that the development of SCW pressure-tube nuclear reactors with the nuclear steam reheat is feasible and significant benefits can be expected over other thermal-energy systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".