National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for total generation nuclear

  1. Nuclear power generation and fuel cycle report 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-09-01

    Nuclear power is an important source of electric energy and the amount of nuclear-generated electricity continued to grow as the performance of nuclear power plants improved. In 1996, nuclear power plants supplied 23 percent of the electricity production for countries with nuclear units, and 17 percent of the total electricity generated worldwide. However, the likelihood of nuclear power assuming a much larger role or even retaining its current share of electricity generation production is uncertain. The industry faces a complex set of issues including economic competitiveness, social acceptance, and the handling of nuclear waste, all of which contribute to the uncertain future of nuclear power. Nevertheless, for some countries the installed nuclear generating capacity is projected to continue to grow. Insufficient indigenous energy resources and concerns over energy independence make nuclear electric generation a viable option, especially for the countries of the Far East.

  2. NUCLEAR FLASH TYPE STEAM GENERATOR

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Johns, F.L.; Gronemeyer, E.C.; Dusbabek, M.R.

    1962-09-01

    A nuclear steam generating apparatus is designed so that steam may be generated from water heated directly by the nuclear heat source. The apparatus comprises a pair of pressure vessels mounted one within the other, the inner vessel containing a nuclear reactor heat source in the lower portion thereof to which water is pumped. A series of small ports are disposed in the upper portion of the inner vessel for jetting heated water under pressure outwardly into the atmosphere within the interior of the outer vessel, at which time part of the jetted water flashes into steam. The invention eliminates the necessity of any intermediate heat transfer medium and components ordinarily required for handling that medium. (AEC)

  3. Utilities' Use of Nuclear Generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ray, Harold B.

    2002-09-30

    This PowerPoint presentation was given at the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee meeting, held 30 September 2002 in Arlington, VA.

  4. THE BIRTH OF NUCLEAR-GENERATED ELECTRICITY

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    BIRTH OF NUCLEAR-GENERATED ELECTRICITY The first time that electricity was generated from nuclear energy occurred in an experimental breeder reactor in Idaho in 1951. The idea for a breeder reactor (a reactor that could produce more fuel than it uses) first occurred to scientists working on the nation's wartime atomic energy program in the early 1940's. Experimental evidence indicated that the breeding of nuclear fuel was possible in a properly designed reactor, but time and resources were not

  5. U.S. Nuclear Generation of Electricity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Capacity and Generation by State and Reactor 2015 P XLS ... data information in the Annual Energy Review, table 9.2. U. S. Nuclear power plants projected electricity ...

  6. California Nuclear Profile - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,070","6,989",74.6,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  7. Fostering the Next Generation of Nuclear Energy Technology |...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Fostering the Next Generation of Nuclear Energy Technology Peter W. Davidson Peter W. ... make available 12.6 billion in loan guarantees for advanced nuclear energy technologies. ...

  8. Nuclear power generation and fuel cycle report 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-10-01

    This report presents the current status and projections through 2015 of nuclear capacity, generation, and fuel cycle requirements for all countries using nuclear power to generate electricity for commercial use. It also contains information and forecasts of developments in the worldwide nuclear fuel market. Long term projections of U.S. nuclear capacity, generation, and spent fuel discharges for two different scenarios through 2040 are developed. A discussion on decommissioning of nuclear power plants is included.

  9. Meeting the Next Generation of Nuclear Nonproliferation Specialists |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration Meeting the Next Generation of Nuclear Nonproliferation Specialists | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact

  10. Salt disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leigh, Christi D.; Hansen, Francis D.

    2011-01-01

    This report summarizes the state of salt repository science, reviews many of the technical issues pertaining to disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in salt, and proposes several avenues for future science-based activities to further the technical basis for disposal in salt. There are extensive salt formations in the forty-eight contiguous states, and many of them may be worthy of consideration for nuclear waste disposal. The United States has extensive experience in salt repository sciences, including an operating facility for disposal of transuranic wastes. The scientific background for salt disposal including laboratory and field tests at ambient and elevated temperature, principles of salt behavior, potential for fracture damage and its mitigation, seal systems, chemical conditions, advanced modeling capabilities and near-future developments, performance assessment processes, and international collaboration are all discussed. The discussion of salt disposal issues is brought current, including a summary of recent international workshops dedicated to high-level waste disposal in salt. Lessons learned from Sandia National Laboratories' experience on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Yucca Mountain Project as well as related salt experience with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are applied in this assessment. Disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in a suitable salt formation is attractive because the material is essentially impermeable, self-sealing, and thermally conductive. Conditions are chemically beneficial, and a significant experience base exists in understanding this environment. Within the period of institutional control, overburden pressure will seal fractures and provide a repository setting that limits radionuclide movement. A salt repository could potentially achieve total containment, with no releases to the environment in undisturbed scenarios for as long as the region is geologically stable. Much of the experience gained from United States repository development, such as seal system design, coupled process simulation, and application of performance assessment methodology, helps define a clear strategy for a heat-generating nuclear waste repository in salt.

  11. Industry Participation Sought for Design of Next Generation Nuclear Plant |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Industry Participation Sought for Design of Next Generation Nuclear Plant Industry Participation Sought for Design of Next Generation Nuclear Plant June 29, 2006 - 2:41pm Addthis Gen IV Reactor Capable of Producing Electricity and/or Hydrogen WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking expressions of interest from prospective industry teams interested in participating in the development and conceptual design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

  12. Bush Administration Moves Forward to Develop Next Generation Nuclear Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Systems | Department of Energy Moves Forward to Develop Next Generation Nuclear Energy Systems Bush Administration Moves Forward to Develop Next Generation Nuclear Energy Systems February 28, 2005 - 10:33am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC-The Bush Administration today took a major step in advancing international efforts to develop the next generation of clean, safe nuclear energy systems. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman joined representatives from Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom to

  13. Next Generation Nuclear Plant GAP Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ball, Sydney J; Burchell, Timothy D; Corwin, William R; Fisher, Stephen Eugene; Forsberg, Charles W.; Morris, Robert Noel; Moses, David Lewis

    2008-12-01

    As a follow-up to the phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) studies conducted recently by NRC on next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) safety, a study was conducted to identify the significant 'gaps' between what is needed and what is already available to adequately assess NGNP safety characteristics. The PIRT studies focused on identifying important phenomena affecting NGNP plant behavior, while the gap study gives more attention to off-normal behavior, uncertainties, and event probabilities under both normal operation and postulated accident conditions. Hence, this process also involved incorporating more detailed evaluations of accident sequences and risk assessments. This study considers thermal-fluid and neutronic behavior under both normal and postulated accident conditions, fission product transport (FPT), high-temperature metals, and graphite behavior and their effects on safety. In addition, safety issues related to coupling process heat (hydrogen production) systems to the reactor are addressed, given the limited design information currently available. Recommendations for further study, including analytical methods development and experimental needs, are presented as appropriate in each of these areas.

  14. Nuclear economics 2000: Deterministic and probabilistic projections of nuclear and coal electric power generation costs for the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, K.A.; Delene, J.G.; Fuller, L.C.; Bowers, H.I.

    1987-06-01

    The total busbar electric generating costs were estimated for locations in ten regions of the United States for base-load nuclear and coal-fired power plants with a startup date of January 2000. For the Midwest region a complete data set that specifies each parameter used to obtain the comparative results is supplied. When based on the reference set of input variables, the comparison of power generation costs is found to favor nuclear in most regions of the country. Nuclear power is most favored in the northeast and western regions where coal must be transported over long distances; however, coal-fired generation is most competitive in the north central region where large reserves of cheaply mineable coal exist. In several regions small changes in the reference variables could cause either option to be preferred. The reference data set reflects the better of recent electric utility construction cost experience (BE) for nuclear plants. This study assumes as its reference case a stable regulatory environment and improved planning and construction practices, resulting in nuclear plants typically built at the present BE costs. Today's BE nuclear-plant capital investment cost model is then being used as a surrogate for projected costs for the next generation of light-water reactor plants. An alternative analysis based on today's median experience (ME) nuclear-plant construction cost experience is also included. In this case, coal is favored in all ten regions, implying that typical nuclear capital investment costs must improve for nuclear to be competitive.

  15. NNSA Next Generation Safeguards Initiative | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration Next Generation Safeguards Initiative | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply

  16. LLNL to deliver next-generation supercomputer | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration LLNL to deliver next-generation supercomputer | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery

  17. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500... 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999......

  18. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999......

  19. Total..........................................................

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999......

  20. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999......

  1. Total..........................................................

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500... 3.2 0.5 0.3 Q 500 to 999......

  2. Total............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total................................................................... 111.1 2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................................... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999....................................................... 23.8 733 667 308 343 312 144 1,000 to 1,499................................................. 20.8 1,157 1,086 625 435 409 235 1,500 to 1,999................................................. 15.4 1,592

  3. Next Generation Nuclear Plant: A Report to Congress

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project helps address the President’s goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing energy security. The...

  4. The National Nuclear Security Administration's Neutron Generator Activities

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    National Nuclear Security Administration's Neutron Generator Activities OAS-L-14-11 August 2014 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and Inspections Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 August 20, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR THE MANAGER, SANDIA FIELD OFFICE FROM: David Sedillo Director, Western Audits Division Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "The National Nuclear Security Administration's Neutron Generator Activities"

  5. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Braidwood Generation Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Braidwood Generation Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,178","9,197",89.1,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  6. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Byron Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Byron Generating Station" ,"Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,164","10,337",101.4,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  7. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases Propane/Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending Components Petroleum Products Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil, 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Distillate Fuel Oil, Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur

  8. Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases Propane/Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending Components Petroleum Products Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil, 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Distillate Fuel Oil, Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur

  9. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Dresden Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Dresden Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,867,"7,727",101.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" 3,867,"6,866",90.4,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  10. Kansas Nuclear Profile - Wolf Creek Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    April 2012" "Next Release Date: February 2013" "Wolf Creek Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,160","9,556",94.0,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  11. Washington Nuclear Profile - Columbia Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Columbia Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 2,"1,097","9,241",96.2,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,097","9,241",96.2

  12. Total..........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7

  13. Total..........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 2.1 0.6 Q 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 13.6 3.7 3.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 9.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.6 2.7 2.5 3.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 5.0 2.1

  14. Total................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to

  15. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7

  16. Total..........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4

  17. Method and apparatus for generating low energy nuclear particles

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Powell, James R.; Reich, Morris; Ludewig, Hans; Todosow, Michael

    1999-02-09

    A particle accelerator (12) generates an input particle beam having an initial energy level above a threshold for generating secondary nuclear particles. A thin target (14) is rotated in the path of the input beam for undergoing nuclear reactions to generate the secondary particles and correspondingly decrease energy of the input beam to about the threshold. The target (14) produces low energy secondary particles and is effectively cooled by radiation and conduction. A neutron scatterer (44) and a neutron filter (42) are also used for preferentially degrading the secondary particles into a lower energy range if desired.

  18. Method and apparatus for generating low energy nuclear particles

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Powell, J.R.; Reich, M.; Ludewig, H.; Todosow, M.

    1999-02-09

    A particle accelerator generates an input particle beam having an initial energy level above a threshold for generating secondary nuclear particles. A thin target is rotated in the path of the input beam for undergoing nuclear reactions to generate the secondary particles and correspondingly decrease energy of the input beam to about the threshold. The target produces low energy secondary particles and is effectively cooled by radiation and conduction. A neutron scatterer and a neutron filter are also used for preferentially degrading the secondary particles into a lower energy range if desired. 18 figs.

  19. An Integrated Safety Assessment Methodology for Generation IV Nuclear Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy J. Leahy

    2010-06-01

    The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) Risk and Safety Working Group (RSWG) was created to develop an effective approach for the safety of Generation IV advanced nuclear energy systems. Early work of the RSWG focused on defining a safety philosophy founded on lessons learned from current and prior generations of nuclear technologies, and on identifying technology characteristics that may help achieve Generation IV safety goals. More recent RSWG work has focused on the definition of an integrated safety assessment methodology for evaluating the safety of Generation IV systems. The methodology, tentatively called ISAM, is an integrated toolkit consisting of analytical techniques that are available and matched to appropriate stages of Generation IV system concept development. The integrated methodology is intended to yield safety-related insights that help actively drive the evolving design throughout the technology development cycle, potentially resulting in enhanced safety, reduced costs, and shortened development time.

  20. Total...........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500.................................... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 2.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 5.1 3.0 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.2 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.4 0.9

  1. ADVANCED CERAMIC MATERIALS FOR NEXT-GENERATION NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Marra, J.

    2010-09-29

    Rising global energy demands coupled with increased environmental concerns point to one solution; they must reduce their dependence on fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases. As the global community faces the challenge of maintaining sovereign nation security, reducing greenhouse gases, and addressing climate change nuclear power will play a significant and likely growing role. In the US, nuclear energy already provides approximately one-fifth of the electricity used to power factories, offices, homes, and schools with 104 operating nuclear power plants, located at 65 sites in 31 states. Additionally, 19 utilities have applied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for construction and operating licenses for 26 new reactors at 17 sites. This planned growth of nuclear power is occurring worldwide and has been termed the 'nuclear renaissance.' As major industrial nations craft their energy future, there are several important factors that must be considered about nuclear energy: (1) it has been proven over the last 40 years to be safe, reliable and affordable (good for Economic Security); (2) its technology and fuel can be domestically produced or obtained from allied nations (good for Energy Security); and (3) it is nearly free of greenhouse gas emissions (good for Environmental Security). Already an important part of worldwide energy security via electricity generation, nuclear energy can also potentially play an important role in industrial processes and supporting the nation's transportation sector. Coal-to-liquid processes, the generation of hydrogen and supporting the growing potential for a greatly increased electric transportation system (i.e. cars and trains) mean that nuclear energy could see dramatic growth in the near future as we seek to meet our growing demand for energy in cleaner, more secure ways. In order to address some of the prominent issues associated with nuclear power generation (i.e., high capital costs, waste management, and proliferation), the worldwide community is working to develop and deploy new nuclear energy systems and advanced fuel cycles. These new nuclear systems address the key challenges and include: (1) extracting the full energy value of the nuclear fuel; (2) creating waste solutions with improved long term safety; (3) minimizing the potential for the misuse of the technology and materials for weapons; (4) continually improving the safety of nuclear energy systems; and (5) keeping the cost of energy affordable.

  2. Next-generation nuclear fuel withstands high-temperature accident

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    conditions U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, 83403 For Immediate Release: Sept. 25, 2013 Media Contacts: Teri Ehresman, 208-526-7785 teri.ehresman@inl.gov Bill Cabage (ORNL), 865-574-4399, cabagewh@ornl.gov Next-generation nuclear fuel withstands high-temperature accident conditions IDAHO FALLS - A safer and more efficient nuclear fuel is on the horizon. A team of researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  3. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Selection and Qualification Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. Doug Hamelin; G. O. Hayner

    2004-11-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production without greenhouse gas emissions. The reactor design is a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble bed thermal neutron spectrum reactor with an average reactor outlet temperature of at least 1000 C. The NGNP will use very high burn up, lowenriched uranium, TRISO-Coated fuel in a once-through fuel cycle. The design service life of the NGNP is 60 years.

  4. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Research and Development Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. O. Hayner; E.L. Shaber

    2004-09-01

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) has selected the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production without greenhouse gas emissions. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble-bed, thermal neutron spectrum reactor that will produce electricity and hydrogen in a state-of-the-art thermodynamically efficient manner. The NGNP will use very high burn-up, low-enriched uranium, TRISO-coated fuel and have a projected plant design service life of 60 years.

  5. Table A31. Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation" " by Value of Shipment Categories, Industry Group, and Selected Industries, 1991" " (Continued)" " (Estimates in Trillion Btu)",,,,"Value of Shipments and Receipts(b)" ,,,," (million dollars)" ,,,"-","-","-","-","-","-","RSE" "SIC"," "," "," "," ","

  6. Table A45. Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation" " by Enclosed Floorspace, Percent Conditioned Floorspace, and Presence of Computer" " Controls for Building Environment, 1991" " (Estimates in Trillion Btu)" ,,"Presence of Computer Controls" ,," for Buildings Environment",,"RSE" "Enclosed Floorspace and"," ","--------------","--------------","Row" "Percent

  7. Reducing Risk for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John M. Beck II; Harold J. Heydt; Emmanuel O. Opare; Kyle B. Oswald

    2010-07-01

    The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, managed by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), is directed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to research, develop, design, construct, and operate a prototype forth generation nuclear reactor to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As with all large projects developing and deploying new technologies, the NGNP has numerous risks that need to be identified, tracked, mitigated, and reduced in order for successful project completion. A Risk Management Plan (RMP) was created to outline the process the INL is using to manage the risks and reduction strategies for the NGNP Project. Integral to the RMP is the development and use of a Risk Management System (RMS). The RMS is a tool that supports management and monitoring of the project risks. The RMS does not only contain a risk register, but other functionality that allows decision makers, engineering staff, and technology researchers to review and monitor the risks as the project matures.

  8. Table A15. Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation" " by Value of Shipment Categories, Industry Group, and Selected Industries, 1994" " (Estimates in Trillion Btu)" ,,,," Value of Shipments and Receipts(b)" ,,,," "," (million dollars)" ,,,,,,,,,"RSE" "SIC"," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",500,"Row" "Code(a)","Industry

  9. Table A34. Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Inputs of Energy for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation" " by Employment Size Categories, Industry Group, and Selected Industries, 1991" " (Continued)" " (Estimates in Trillion Btu)" ,,,,,"Employment Size" ,,,"-","-","-","-","-","-","RSE" "SIC"," "," "," "," "," "," ",,"1,000","Row"

  10. Table 9.1 Nuclear Generating Units, 1955-2011

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1 Nuclear Generating Units, 1955-2011 Year Original Licensing Regulations (10 CFR Part 50) 1 Current Licensing Regulations (10 CFR Part 52) 1 Permanent Shutdowns Operable Units 7 Construction Permits Issued 2,3 Low-Power Operating Licenses Issued 3,4 Full-Power Operating Licenses Issued 3,5 Early Site Permits Issued 3 Combined License Applications Received 6 Combined Licenses Issued 3 1955 1 0 0 – – – – – – 0 0 1956 3 0 0 – – – – – – 0 0 1957 1 1 1 – – – – – – 0 1 1958 0 0 0 –

  11. HIGH EFFICIENCY GENERATION OF HYDROGEN FUELS USING NUCLEAR POWER

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BROWN,LC; BESENBRUCH,GE; LENTSCH,RD; SCHULTZ,KR; FUNK,JF; PICKARD,PS; MARSHALL,AC; SHOWALTER,SK

    2003-06-01

    OAK B202 HIGH EFFICIENCY GENERATION OF HYDROGEN FUELS USING NUCLEAR POWER. Combustion of fossil fuels, used to power transportation, generate electricity, heat homes and fuel industry provides 86% of the world's energy. Drawbacks to fossil fuel utilization include limited supply, pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions, thought to be responsible for global warming, are now the subject of international treaties. Together, these drawbacks argue for the replacement of fossil fuels with a less-polluting potentially renewable primary energy such as nuclear energy. Conventional nuclear plants readily generate electric power but fossil fuels are firmly entrenched in the transportation sector. Hydrogen is an environmentally attractive transportation fuel that has the potential to displace fossil fuels. Hydrogen will be particularly advantageous when coupled with fuel cells. Fuel cells have higher efficiency than conventional battery/internal combustion engine combinations and do not produce nitrogen oxides during low-temperature operation. Contemporary hydrogen production is primarily based on fossil fuels and most specifically on natural gas. When hydrogen is produced using energy derived from fossil fuels, there is little or no environmental advantage. There is currently no large scale, cost-effective, environmentally attractive hydrogen production process available for commercialization, nor has such a process been identified. The objective of this work is to find an economically feasible process for the production of hydrogen, by nuclear means, using an advanced high-temperature nuclear reactor as the primary energy source. Hydrogen production by thermochemical water-splitting (Appendix A), a chemical process that accomplishes the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen using only heat or, in the case of a hybrid thermochemical process, by a combination of heat and electrolysis, could meet these goals. Hydrogen produced from fossil fuels has trace contaminants (primarily carbon monoxide) that are detrimental to precious metal catalyzed fuel cells, as is now recognized by many of the world's largest automobile companies. Thermochemical hydrogen will not contain carbon monoxide as an impurity at any level. Electrolysis, the alternative process for producing hydrogen using nuclear energy, suffers from thermodynamic inefficiencies in both the production of electricity and in electrolytic parts of the process. The efficiency of electrolysis (electricity to hydrogen) is currently about 80%. Electric power generation efficiency would have to exceed 65% (thermal to electrical) for the combined efficiency to exceed the 52% (thermal to hydrogen) calculated for one thermochemical cycle. Thermochemical water-splitting cycles have been studied, at various levels of effort, for the past 35 years. They were extensively studied in the late 70s and early 80s but have received little attention in the past 10 years, particularly in the U.S. While there is no question about the technical feasibility and the potential for high efficiency, cycles with proven low cost and high efficiency have yet to be developed commercially. Over 100 cycles have been proposed, but substantial research has been executed on only a few. This report describes work accomplished during a three-year project whose objective is to ''define an economically feasible concept for production of hydrogen, by nuclear means, using an advanced high temperature nuclear reactor as the energy source.'' The emphasis of the first phase was to evaluate thermochemical processes which offer the potential for efficient, cost-effective, large-scale production of hydrogen from water in which the primary energy input is high temperature heat from an advanced nuclear reactor and to select one (or, at most three) for further detailed consideration. During Phase 1, an exhaustive literature search was performed to locate all cycles previously proposed. The cycles located were screened using objective criteria to determine which could benefit, in terms of efficiency and cost, from the high-temperature capabilities of advanced nuclear reactors. The more promising cycles were then analyzed in depth as to their adaptability to advanced high-temperature nuclear reactors. As a result, the Sulfur-Iodine (S-I) cycle was selected for integration into the advanced nuclear reactor system. In Phases 2 and 3, alternative flowsheets were developed and compared. This effort entailed a considerable effort into developing the solution thermodynamics pertinent to the S-I cycle.

  12. Generating unstructured nuclear reactor core meshes in parallel

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Jain, Rajeev; Tautges, Timothy J.

    2014-10-24

    Recent advances in supercomputers and parallel solver techniques have enabled users to run large simulations problems using millions of processors. Techniques for multiphysics nuclear reactor core simulations are under active development in several countries. Most of these techniques require large unstructured meshes that can be hard to generate in a standalone desktop computers because of high memory requirements, limited processing power, and other complexities. We have previously reported on a hierarchical lattice-based approach for generating reactor core meshes. Here, we describe efforts to exploit coarse-grained parallelism during reactor assembly and reactor core mesh generation processes. We highlight several reactor coremore » examples including a very high temperature reactor, a full-core model of the Korean MONJU reactor, a ¼ pressurized water reactor core, the fast reactor Experimental Breeder Reactor-II core with a XX09 assembly, and an advanced breeder test reactor core. The times required to generate large mesh models, along with speedups obtained from running these problems in parallel, are reported. A graphical user interface to the tools described here has also been developed.« less

  13. Generating unstructured nuclear reactor core meshes in parallel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jain, Rajeev; Tautges, Timothy J.

    2014-10-24

    Recent advances in supercomputers and parallel solver techniques have enabled users to run large simulations problems using millions of processors. Techniques for multiphysics nuclear reactor core simulations are under active development in several countries. Most of these techniques require large unstructured meshes that can be hard to generate in a standalone desktop computers because of high memory requirements, limited processing power, and other complexities. We have previously reported on a hierarchical lattice-based approach for generating reactor core meshes. Here, we describe efforts to exploit coarse-grained parallelism during reactor assembly and reactor core mesh generation processes. We highlight several reactor core examples including a very high temperature reactor, a full-core model of the Korean MONJU reactor, a pressurized water reactor core, the fast reactor Experimental Breeder Reactor-II core with a XX09 assembly, and an advanced breeder test reactor core. The times required to generate large mesh models, along with speedups obtained from running these problems in parallel, are reported. A graphical user interface to the tools described here has also been developed.

  14. DOE, NRC Issue Licensing Roadmap For Next-Generation Nuclear Plant |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy DOE, NRC Issue Licensing Roadmap For Next-Generation Nuclear Plant DOE, NRC Issue Licensing Roadmap For Next-Generation Nuclear Plant August 15, 2008 - 3:15pm Addthis WASHINGTON, DC -The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today delivered to Congress the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Licensing Strategy Report which describes the licensing approach, the analytical tools, the research and development activities and the

  15. Dependable Hydrogen and Industrial Heat Generation from the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Charles V. Park; Michael W. Patterson; Vincent C. Maio; Piyush Sabharwall

    2009-03-01

    The Department of Energy is working with industry to develop a next generation, high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor (HTGR) as a part of the effort to supply the US with abundant, clean and secure energy. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project, led by the Idaho National Laboratory, will demonstrate the ability of the HTGR to generate hydrogen, electricity, and high-quality process heat for a wide range of industrial applications. Substituting HTGR power for traditional fossil fuel resources reduces the cost and supply vulnerability of natural gas and oil, and reduces or eliminates greenhouse gas emissions. As authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, industry leaders are developing designs for the construction of a commercial prototype producing up to 600 MWt of power by 2021. This paper describes a variety of critical applications that are appropriate for the HTGR with an emphasis placed on applications requiring a clean and reliable source of hydrogen. An overview of the NGNP project status and its significant technology development efforts are also presented.

  16. Modeling a Helical-coil Steam Generator in RELAP5-3D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nathan V. Hoffer; Piyush Sabharwall; Nolan A. Anderson

    2011-01-01

    Options for the primary heat transport loop heat exchangers for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant are currently being evaluated. A helical-coil steam generator is one heat exchanger design under consideration. Safety is an integral part of the helical-coil steam generator evaluation. Transient analysis plays a key role in evaluation of the steam generators safety. Using RELAP5-3D to model the helical-coil steam generator, a loss of pressure in the primary side of the steam generator is simulated. This report details the development of the steam generator model, the loss of pressure transient, and the response of the steam generator primary and secondary systems to the loss of primary pressure. Back ground on High Temperature Gas-cooled reactors, steam generators, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant is provided to increase the readers understanding of the material presented.

  17. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Resilient Control System Functional Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lynne M. Stevens

    2010-07-01

    Control Systems and their associated instrumentation must meet reliability, availability, maintainability, and resiliency criteria in order for high temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) to be economically competitive. Research, perhaps requiring several years, may be needed to develop control systems to support plant availability and resiliency. This report functionally analyzes the gaps between traditional and resilient control systems as applicable to HTGRs, which includes the Next Generation Nuclear Plant; defines resilient controls; assesses the current state of both traditional and resilient control systems; and documents the functional gaps existing between these two controls approaches as applicable to HTGRs. This report supports the development of an overall strategy for applying resilient controls to HTGRs by showing that control systems with adequate levels of resilience perform at higher levels, respond more quickly to disturbances, increase operational efficiency, and increase public protection.

  18. NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSING BASIS EVENT SELECTION WHITE PAPER

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark Holbrook

    2010-09-01

    The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) will be a licensed commercial high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) plant capable of producing the electricity and high temperature process heat for industrial markets supporting a range of end-user applications. The NGNP Project has adopted the 10 CFR 52 Combined License (COL) application process, as recommended in the Report to Congress, dated August 2008, as the foundation for the NGNP licensing strategy. NRC licensing of the NGNP plant utilizing this process will demonstrate the efficacy of licensing future HTGRs for commercial industrial applications. This white paper is one in a series of submittals that will address key generic issues of the COL priority licensing topics as part of the process for establishing HTGR regulatory requirements.

  19. NNSA Administrator Addresses the Next Generation of Nuclear Security Professionals: Part 1

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Thomas D'Agostino

    2010-09-01

    Administrator Thomas DAgostino of the National Nuclear Security Administration addressed the next generation of nuclear security professionals during the opening session of todays 2009 Department of Energy (DOE) Computational Science Graduate Fellowship Annual Conference. Administrator DAgostino discussed NNSAs role in implementing President Obamas nuclear security agenda and encouraged the computing science fellows to consider careers in nuclear security.

  20. NNSA Administrator Addresses the Next Generation of Nuclear Security Professionals: Part 2

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Thomas D'Agostino

    2010-09-01

    Administrator Thomas DAgostino of the National Nuclear Security Administration addressed the next generation of nuclear security professionals during the opening session of todays 2009 Department of Energy (DOE) Computational Science Graduate Fellowship Annual Conference. Administrator DAgostino discussed NNSAs role in implementing President Obamas nuclear security agenda and encouraged the computing science fellows to consider careers in nuclear security.

  1. Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel Cycle Report 1996

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1996-01-01

    This report provides information and forecasts important to the domestic and world nuclear and uranium industries.

  2. Total Cost Per MwH for all common large scale power generation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    out of the stack, toxificaiton of the lakes and streams, plant decommision costs. For nuclear yiou are talking about managing the waste in perpetuity. The plant decomission costs...

  3. Paving the path for next-generation nuclear energy | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Paving the path for next-generation nuclear energy Paving the path for next-generation nuclear energy May 6, 2013 - 2:26pm Addthis Renewed energy and enhanced coordination are on the horizon for an international collaborative that is advancing new, safer nuclear energy systems. Renewed energy and enhanced coordination are on the horizon for an international collaborative that is advancing new, safer nuclear energy systems. Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Deputy

  4. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Research and Development Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G.O. Hayner; R.L. Bratton; R.N. Wright

    2005-09-01

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) has selected the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production without greenhouse gas emissions. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble-bed, thermal neutron spectrum reactor that will produce electricity and hydrogen in a state-of-the-art thermodynamically efficient manner. The NGNP will use very high burn-up, low-enriched uranium, TRISO-coated fuel and have a projected plant design service life of 60 years. The VHTR concept is considered to be the nearest-term reactor design that has the capability to efficiently produce hydrogen. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The NGNP Project is envisioned to demonstrate the following: (1) A full-scale prototype VHTR by about 2021; (2) High-temperature Brayton Cycle electric power production at full scale with a focus on economic performance; (3) Nuclear-assisted production of hydrogen (with about 10% of the heat) with a focus on economic performance; and (4) By test, the exceptional safety capabilities of the advanced gas-cooled reactors. Further, the NGNP program will: (1) Obtain a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) License to construct and operate the NGNP, this process will provide a basis for future performance based, risk-informed licensing; and (2) Support the development, testing, and prototyping of hydrogen infrastructures. The NGNP Materials Research and Development (R&D) Program is responsible for performing R&D on likely NGNP materials in support of the NGNP design, licensing, and construction activities. The NGNP Materials R&D Program includes the following elements: (1) Developing a specific approach, program plan and other project management tools for managing the R&D program elements; (2) Developing a specific work package for the R&D activities to be performed during each government fiscal year; (3) Reporting the status and progress of the work based on committed deliverables and milestones; (4) Developing collaboration in areas of materials R&D of benefit to the NGNP with countries that are a part of the Generation IV International Forum; and (5) Ensuring that the R&D work performed in support of the materials program is in conformance with established Quality Assurance and procurement requirements. The objective of the NGNP Materials R&D Program is to provide the essential materials R&D needed to support the design and licensing of the reactor and balance of plant, excluding the hydrogen plant. The materials R&D program is being initiated prior to the design effort to ensure that materials R&D activities are initiated early enough to support the design process and support the Project Integrator. The thermal, environmental, and service life conditions of the NGNP will make selection and qualification of some high-temperature materials a significant challenge; thus, new materials and approaches may be required.

  5. DOE Seeks Additional Input on Next Generation Nuclear Plant | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Additional Input on Next Generation Nuclear Plant DOE Seeks Additional Input on Next Generation Nuclear Plant April 17, 2008 - 10:49am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC -The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced it is seeking public and industry input on how to best achieve the goals and meet the requirements for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) demonstration project work at DOE's Idaho National Laboratory. DOE today issued a Request for Information and Expressions of Interest

  6. Letter to NEAC to Review the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Activities |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy to NEAC to Review the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Activities Letter to NEAC to Review the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Activities The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project was established under the Energy Policy Act in August 2005 (EPACT-2005). EPACT-2005 defined an overall plan and timetable for NGNP research, design, licensing, construction and operation by the end of FY 2021. At the time that EPACT-2005 was passed, it was envisioned that key aspects of the

  7. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Research and Development Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2005-01-01

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting research and development (R&D) on the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) design concept for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactor that will produce electricity and hydrogen in a highly efficient manner. The NGNP reactor core could be either a prismatic graphite block type core or a pebble bed core. Use of a liquid salt coolant is also being evaluated. The NGNP will use very high-burnup, low-enriched uranium, TRISO-coated fuel, and have a projected plant design service life of 60 years. The VHTR concept is considered to be the nearest-term reactor design that has the capability to efficiently produce hydrogen. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The objectives of the NGNP Project are to: (1) Demonstrate a full-scale prototype VHTR that is commercially licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2) Demonstrate safe and economical nuclear-assisted production of hydrogen and electricity. The DOE laboratories, led by the INL, will perform R&D that will be critical to the success of the NGNP, primarily in the areas of: (1) High temperature gas reactor fuels behavior; (2) High temperature materials qualification; (3) Design methods development and validation; (4) Hydrogen production technologies; and (5) Energy conversion. The current R&D work is addressing fundamental issues that are relevant to a variety of possible NGNP designs. This document describes the NGNP R&D planned and currently underway in the first three topic areas listed above. The NGNP Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) Fuel Development and Qualification Program is presented in Section 2, the NGNP Materials R&D Program Plan is presented in Section 3, and the NGNP Design Methods Development and Validation R&D Program is presented in Section 4. The DOE-funded hydrogen production [DOE 2004] and energy conversion technologies programs are described elsewhere.

  8. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Methods Technical Program Plan -- PLN-2498

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard R. Schultz; Abderrafi M. Ougouag; David W. Nigg; Hans D. Gougar; Richard W. Johnson; William K. Terry; Chang H. Oh; Donald W. McEligot; Gary W. Johnsen; Glenn E. McCreery; Woo Y. Yoon; James W. Sterbentz; J. Steve Herring; Temitope A. Taiwo; Thomas Y. C. Wei; William D. Pointer; Won S. Yang; Michael T. Farmer; Hussein S. Khalil; Madeline A. Feltus

    2010-09-01

    One of the great challenges of designing and licensing the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is to confirm that the intended VHTR analysis tools can be used confidently to make decisions and to assure all that the reactor systems are safe and meet the performance objectives of the Generation IV Program. The research and development (R&D) projects defined in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Design Methods Development and Validation Program will ensure that the tools used to perform the required calculations and analyses can be trusted. The Methods R&D tasks are designed to ensure that the calculational envelope of the tools used to analyze the VHTR reactor systems encompasses, or is larger than, the operational and transient envelope of the VHTR itself. The Methods R&D focuses on the development of tools to assess the neutronic and thermal fluid behavior of the plant. The fuel behavior and fission product transport models are discussed in the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) program plan. Various stress analysis and mechanical design tools will also need to be developed and validated and will ultimately also be included in the Methods R&D Program Plan. The calculational envelope of the neutronics and thermal-fluids software tools intended to be used on the NGNP is defined by the scenarios and phenomena that these tools can calculate with confidence. The software tools can only be used confidently when the results they produce have been shown to be in reasonable agreement with first-principle results, thought-problems, and data that describe the highly ranked phenomena inherent in all operational conditions and important accident scenarios for the VHTR.

  9. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Methods Technical Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard R. Schultz; Abderrafi M. Ougouag; David W. Nigg; Hans D. Gougar; Richard W. Johnson; William K. Terry; Chang H. Oh; Donald W. McEligot; Gary W. Johnsen; Glenn E. McCreery; Woo Y. Yoon; James W. Sterbentz; J. Steve Herring; Temitope A. Taiwo; Thomas Y. C. Wei; William D. Pointer; Won S. Yang; Michael T. Farmer; Hussein S. Khalil; Madeline A. Feltus

    2010-12-01

    One of the great challenges of designing and licensing the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is to confirm that the intended VHTR analysis tools can be used confidently to make decisions and to assure all that the reactor systems are safe and meet the performance objectives of the Generation IV Program. The research and development (R&D) projects defined in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Design Methods Development and Validation Program will ensure that the tools used to perform the required calculations and analyses can be trusted. The Methods R&D tasks are designed to ensure that the calculational envelope of the tools used to analyze the VHTR reactor systems encompasses, or is larger than, the operational and transient envelope of the VHTR itself. The Methods R&D focuses on the development of tools to assess the neutronic and thermal fluid behavior of the plant. The fuel behavior and fission product transport models are discussed in the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) program plan. Various stress analysis and mechanical design tools will also need to be developed and validated and will ultimately also be included in the Methods R&D Program Plan. The calculational envelope of the neutronics and thermal-fluids software tools intended to be used on the NGNP is defined by the scenarios and phenomena that these tools can calculate with confidence. The software tools can only be used confidently when the results they produce have been shown to be in reasonable agreement with first-principle results, thought-problems, and data that describe the highly ranked phenomena inherent in all operational conditions and important accident scenarios for the VHTR.

  10. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Methods Technical Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard R. Schultz; Abderrafi M. Ougouag; David W. Nigg; Hans D. Gougar; Richard W. Johnson; William K. Terry; Chang H. Oh; Donald W. McEligot; Gary W. Johnsen; Glenn E. McCreery; Woo Y. Yoon; James W. Sterbentz; J. Steve Herring; Temitope A. Taiwo; Thomas Y. C. Wei; William D. Pointer; Won S. Yang; Michael T. Farmer; Hussein S. Khalil; Madeline A. Feltus

    2007-01-01

    One of the great challenges of designing and licensing the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is to confirm that the intended VHTR analysis tools can be used confidently to make decisions and to assure all that the reactor systems are safe and meet the performance objectives of the Generation IV Program. The research and development (R&D) projects defined in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Design Methods Development and Validation Program will ensure that the tools used to perform the required calculations and analyses can be trusted. The Methods R&D tasks are designed to ensure that the calculational envelope of the tools used to analyze the VHTR reactor systems encompasses, or is larger than, the operational and transient envelope of the VHTR itself. The Methods R&D focuses on the development of tools to assess the neutronic and thermal fluid behavior of the plant. The fuel behavior and fission product transport models are discussed in the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) program plan. Various stress analysis and mechanical design tools will also need to be developed and validated and will ultimately also be included in the Methods R&D Program Plan. The calculational envelope of the neutronics and thermal-fluids software tools intended to be used on the NGNP is defined by the scenarios and phenomena that these tools can calculate with confidence. The software tools can only be used confidently when the results they produce have been shown to be in reasonable agreement with first-principle results, thought-problems, and data that describe the highly ranked phenomena inherent in all operational conditions and important accident scenarios for the VHTR.

  11. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of Siting a HTGR Co-generation Plant on an Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.E. Demick

    2011-10-01

    This paper summarizes an evaluation by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project of siting a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) plant on an existing nuclear plant site that is located in an area of significant industrial activity. This is a co-generation application in which the HTGR Plant will be supplying steam and electricity to one or more of the nearby industrial plants.

  12. Investing in the Next Generation of U.S. Nuclear Energy Leaders...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    the Next Generation of U.S. Nuclear Energy Leaders Investing in the Next Generation of U.S. ... power continues to be part of our clean energy mix while leveraging the strong ...

  13. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Research and Development Program Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. E. MacDonald

    2005-01-01

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting research and development (R&D) on the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) design concept for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactor that will produce electricity and hydrogen in a highly efficient manner. The NGNP reactor core could be either a prismatic graphite block type core or a pebble bed core. Use of a liquid salt coolant is also being evaluated. The NGNP will use very high-burnup, low-enriched uranium, TRISO-coated fuel, and have a projected plant design service life of 60 years. The VHTR concept is considered to be the nearest-term reactor design that has the capability to efficiently produce hydrogen. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The objectives of the NGNP Project are to: Demonstrate a full-scale prototype VHTR that is commercially licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Demonstrate safe and economical nuclearassisted production of hydrogen and electricity. The DOE laboratories, led by the INL, will perform R&D that will be critical to the success of the NGNP, primarily in the areas of: High temperature gas reactor fuels behavior High temperature materials qualification Design methods development and validation Hydrogen production technologies Energy conversion. The current R&D work is addressing fundamental issues that are relevant to a variety of possible NGNP designs. This document describes the NGNP R&D planned and currently underway in the first three topic areas listed above. The NGNP Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) Fuel Development and Qualification Program is presented in Section 2, the NGNP Materials R&D Program Plan is presented in Section 3, and the NGNP Design Methods Development and Validation R&D Program is presented in Section 4. The DOE-funded hydrogen production [DOE 2004] and energy conversion technologies programs are described elsewhere.

  14. Investing in the next generation: The Office of Nuclear Energy...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    educational and research opportunities to prepare NS&E students for nuclear energy professions, in support of NE's mission. NE is seeking applicants for undergraduate...

  15. Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel Cycle Report 1997

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1997-01-01

    Final issue. This report provides information and forecasts important to the domestic and world nuclear and uranium industries. 1997 represents the most recent publication year.

  16. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Steam Generator and Intermediate Heat Exchanger Materials Research and Development Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. K. Wright

    2010-09-01

    DOE has selected the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production. It will have an outlet gas temperature in the range of 900°C and a plant design service life of 60 years. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble-bed reactor and use low-enriched uranium, Tri-Isotopic (TRISO)-coated fuel. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The NGNP Materials Research and Development (R&D) Program is responsible for performing R&D on likely NGNP materials in support of the NGNP design, licensing, and construction activities. Today’s high-temperature alloys and associated ASME Codes for reactor applications are approved up to 760°C. However, some primary system components, such as the Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for the NGNP will require use of materials that can withstand higher temperatures. The thermal, environmental, and service life conditions of the NGNP will make selection and qualification of some high-temperature materials a significant challenge. Examples include materials for the core barrel and core internals, such as the control rod sleeves. The requirements of the materials for the IHX are among the most demanding. Selection of the technology and design configuration for the NGNP must consider both the cost and risk profiles to ensure that the demonstration plant establishes a sound foundation for future commercial deployments. The NGNP challenge is to achieve a significant advancement in nuclear technology while at the same time setting the stage for an economically viable deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector soon after 2020. A number of solid solution strengthened nickel based alloys have been considered for application in heat exchangers and core internals for the NGNP. The primary candidates are Inconel 617, Haynes 230, Incoloy 800H and Hastelloy XR. Based on the technical maturity, availability in required product forms, experience base, and high temperature mechanical properties all of the vendor pre-conceptual design studies have specified Alloy 617 as the material of choice for heat exchangers. Also a draft code case for Alloy 617 was developed previously. Although action was suspended before the code case was accepted by ASME, this draft code case provides a significant head start for achieving codification of the material. Similarly, Alloy 800H is the material of choice for control rod sleeves. In addition to the above listed considerations, Alloy 800H is already listed in the nuclear section of the ASME Code; although the maximum use temperature and time need to be increased.

  17. Training the Next Generation of Nuclear Energy Leaders

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    To train and educate the future leaders of the nuclear energy field, the Energy Department is offering $47.2 million in competitive scholarships, fellowships, research projects and university research reactor upgrades.

  18. Mix and mingle: Networking for the next nuclear generation | Y-12 National

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Security Complex Mix and mingle: Networking ... Mix and mingle: Networking for the next nuclear generation Posted: February 25, 2016 - 2:55pm Print version CNS offers groups to help early career professionals. Whether you're starting your first career or establishing a new one, transitioning into the nuclear industry from college, the military or another profession or organization can be an exciting and challenging experience. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC has three programs that offer

  19. Design Features and Technology Uncertainties for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John M. Ryskamp; Phil Hildebrandt; Osamu Baba; Ron Ballinger; Robert Brodsky; Hans-Wolfgang Chi; Dennis Crutchfield; Herb Estrada; Jeane-Claude Garnier; Gerald Gordon; Richard Hobbins; Dan Keuter; Marilyn Kray; Philippe Martin; Steve Melancon; Christian Simon; Henry Stone; Robert Varrin; Werner von Lensa

    2004-06-01

    This report presents the conclusions, observations, and recommendations of the Independent Technology Review Group (ITRG) regarding design features and important technology uncertainties associated with very-high-temperature nuclear system concepts for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The ITRG performed its reviews during the period November 2003 through April 2004.

  20. Investing in the next generation: The Office of Nuclear Energy Issues

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Requests for Scholarship and Fellowship Applications. | Department of Energy Investing in the next generation: The Office of Nuclear Energy Issues Requests for Scholarship and Fellowship Applications. Investing in the next generation: The Office of Nuclear Energy Issues Requests for Scholarship and Fellowship Applications. As President Obama recognized in the State of the Union on January 28th, 2014, the best way to grow the economy and create jobs is to prepare students with the skills

  1. Development of New Generation of Adsorbents and Waste Forms for Nuclear

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Waste Management. (Conference) | SciTech Connect Development of New Generation of Adsorbents and Waste Forms for Nuclear Waste Management. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Development of New Generation of Adsorbents and Waste Forms for Nuclear Waste Management. Abstract not provided. Authors: Wang, Yifeng Publication Date: 2014-10-01 OSTI Identifier: 1242125 Report Number(s): SAND2014-19376C 540938 DOE Contract Number: AC04-94AL85000 Resource Type: Conference Resource Relation:

  2. Small Modular Reactors - Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    | Department of Energy Reactors - Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S. Small Modular Reactors - Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S. This report presents the results of an extensive analysis of the economics of both gigawatt-scale and small modular reactors. Topics covered include the safety case, economics, the business case, and a business plan, government incentives, licensing, design and engineering, and future research. PDF icon Small Modular Reactors - Key

  3. Illinois Nuclear Profile - LaSalle Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LaSalle Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,118","9,207",94.0,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  4. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - PSEG Salem Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    PSEG Salem Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,174","8,777",85.3,"PWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel"

  5. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer capacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,"1,161","9,439",92.8,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,"1,161","9,439",92.8

  6. Aging of nuclear station diesel generators: Evaluation of operating and expert experience: Phase 1, Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hoopingarner, K.R.; Vause, J.W.; Dingee, D.A.; Nesbitt, J.F.

    1987-08-01

    Pacific Northwest Laboratory evaluated operational and expert experience pertaining to the aging degradation of diesel generators in nuclear service. The research, sponsored by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), identified and characterized the contribution of aging to emergency diesel generator failures. This report, Volume I, reviews diesel-generator experience to identify the systems and components most subject to aging degradation and isolates the major causes of failure that may affect future operational readiness. Evaluations show that as plants age, the percent of aging-related failures increases and failure modes change. A compilation is presented of recommended corrective actions for the failures identified. This study also includes a review of current, relevant industry programs, research, and standards. Volume II reports the results of an industry-wide workshop held on May 28 and 29, 1986 to discuss the technical issues associated with aging of nuclear service emergency diesel generators.

  7. Energy Department Invests $60 Million to Train Next Generation Nuclear Energy Leaders, Pioneer Advanced Nuclear Technology

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Building on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to continue America’s leadership in clean energy innovation, the Energy Department announced more than $60 million in nuclear energy research awards and improvements to university research reactors and infrastructure.

  8. Apparatus for nuclear transmutation and power production using an intense accelerator-generated thermal neutron flux

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bowman, Charles D.

    1992-01-01

    Apparatus for nuclear transmutation and power production using an intense accelerator-generated thermal neutron flux. High thermal neutron fluxes generated from the action of a high power proton accelerator on a spallation target allows the efficient burn-up of higher actinide nuclear waste by a two-step process. Additionally, rapid burn-up of fission product waste for nuclides having small thermal neutron cross sections, and the practicality of small material inventories while achieving significant throughput derive from employment of such high fluxes. Several nuclear technology problems are addressed including 1. nuclear energy production without a waste stream requiring storage on a geological timescale, 2. the burn-up of defense and commercial nuclear waste, and 3. the production of defense nuclear material. The apparatus includes an accelerator, a target for neutron production surrounded by a blanket region for transmutation, a turbine for electric power production, and a chemical processing facility. In all applications, the accelerator power may be generated internally from fission and the waste produced thereby is transmuted internally so that waste management might not be required beyond the human lifespan.

  9. Apparatus for nuclear transmutation and power production using an intense accelerator-generated thermal neutron flux

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bowman, C.D.

    1992-11-03

    Apparatus for nuclear transmutation and power production using an intense accelerator-generated thermal neutron flux. High thermal neutron fluxes generated from the action of a high power proton accelerator on a spallation target allows the efficient burn-up of higher actinide nuclear waste by a two-step process. Additionally, rapid burn-up of fission product waste for nuclides having small thermal neutron cross sections, and the practicality of small material inventories while achieving significant throughput derive from employment of such high fluxes. Several nuclear technology problems are addressed including 1. nuclear energy production without a waste stream requiring storage on a geological timescale, 2. the burn-up of defense and commercial nuclear waste, and 3. the production of defense nuclear material. The apparatus includes an accelerator, a target for neutron production surrounded by a blanket region for transmutation, a turbine for electric power production, and a chemical processing facility. In all applications, the accelerator power may be generated internally from fission and the waste produced thereby is transmuted internally so that waste management might not be required beyond the human lifespan.

  10. New Opportunity for Improved Nuclear Forensics, Radiochemical Diagnostics, and Nuclear Astrophysics: Need for a Total-Cross-Section Apparatus at the LANSCE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koehler, Paul E.; Hayes-Sterbenz, Anna C.; Bredeweg, Todd Allen; Couture, Aaron J.; Engle, Jonathan; Keksis, August L.; Nortier, Francois M.; Ullmann, John L.

    2014-03-12

    Total-cross-section measurements are feasible on a much wider range of radioactive samples than (n,?) cross-section measurements, and information extracted from the former can be used to set tight constraints on the latter. There are many (n,?) cross sections of great interest to radiochemical diagnostics, nuclear forensics, and nuclear astrophysics which are beyond the reach of current direct measurement, that could be obtained in this way. Our simulations indicate that measurements can be made at the Manuel Lujan Jr. Neutron Scattering Center at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center for samples as small as 10?g. There are at least 40 high-interest nuclides which should be measurable, including 88Y,167,168,170,171Tm, 173,174Lu, and189,190,192Ir.

  11. Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Ten-Year Program Plan Fiscal Year 2005, Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2005-03-01

    As reflected in the U.S. ''National Energy Policy'', nuclear energy has a strong role to play in satisfying our nation's future energy security and environmental quality needs. The desirable environmental, economic, and sustainability attributes of nuclear energy give it a cornerstone position, not only in the U.S. energy portfolio, but also in the world's future energy portfolio. Accordingly, on September 20, 2002, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced that, ''The United States and nine other countries have agreed to develop six Generation IV nuclear energy concepts''. The Secretary also noted that the systems are expected to ''represent significant advances in economics, safety, reliability, proliferation resistance, and waste minimization''. The six systems and their broad, worldwide research and development (R&D) needs are described in ''A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems'' (hereafter referred to as the Generation IV Roadmap). The first 10 years of required U.S. R&D contributions to achieve the goals described in the Generation IV Roadmap are outlined in this Program Plan.

  12. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Structures, Systems, and Components Safety Classification White Paper

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pete Jordan

    2010-09-01

    This white paper outlines the relevant regulatory policy and guidance for a risk-informed approach for establishing the safety classification of Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and sets forth certain facts for review and discussion in order facilitate an effective submittal leading to an NGNP Combined Operating License application under 10 CFR 52.

  13. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant - Insights Gained from the INEEL Point Design Studies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Philip E. MacDonald; A. M. Baxter; P. D. Bayless; J. M. Bolin; H. D. Gougar; R. L. Moore; A. M. Ougouag; M. B. Richards; R. L. Sant; J. W. Sterbentz; W. K. Terry

    2004-08-01

    This paper provides the results of an assessment of two possible versions of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a prismatic fuel type helium gas-cooled reactor and a pebble-bed fuel helium gas reactor. Insights gained regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the two designs are also discussed. Both designs will meet the three basic requirements that have been set for the NGNP: a coolant outlet temperature of 1000 C, passive safety, and a total power output consistent with that expected for commercial high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. Two major modifications of the current Gas Turbine- Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) design were needed to obtain a prismatic block design with a 1000 C outlet temperature: reducing the bypass flow and better controlling the inlet coolant flow distribution to the core. The total power that could be obtained for different core heights without exceeding a peak transient fuel temperature of 1600 C during a high or low-pressure conduction cooldown event was calculated. With a coolant inlet temperature of 490 C and 10% nominal core bypass flow, it is estimated that the peak power for a 10-block high core is 686 MWt, for a 12-block high core is 786 MWt, and for a 14-block core is about 889 MWt. The core neutronics calculations showed that the NGNP will exhibit strongly negative Doppler and isothermal temperature coefficients of reactivity over the burnup cycle. In the event of rapid loss of the helium gas, there is negligible core reactivity change. However, water or steam ingress into the core coolant channels can produce a relatively large reactivity effect. Two versions of an annular pebble-bed NGNP have also been developed, a 300 and a 600 MWt module. From this work we learned how to design passively safe pebble bed reactors that produce more than 600 MWt. We also found a way to improve both the fuel utilization and safety by modifying the pebble design (by adjusting the fuel zone radius in the pebble to optimize the fuel-to-moderator ratio). We also learned how to perform design optimization calculations by using a genetic algorithm that automatically selects a sequence of design parameter sets to meet specified fitness criteria increasingly well. In the pebble-bed NGNP design work, we use the genetic algorithm to direct the INEELs PEBBED code to perform hundreds of code runs in less than a day to find optimized design configurations. And finally, we learned how to calculate cross sections more accurately for pebble bed reactors, and we identified research needs for the further refinement of the cross section calculations.

  14. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs) Volume 6: Process Heat and Hydrogen Co-Generation PIRTs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Forsberg, Charles W; Gorensek, M. B.; Herring, S.; Pickard, P.

    2008-03-01

    A Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) exercise was conducted to identify potential safety-0-related physical phenomena for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) when coupled to a hydrogen production or similar chemical plant. The NGNP is a very high-temperature reactor (VHTR) with the design goal to produce high-temperature heat and electricity for nearby chemical plants. Because high-temperature heat can only be transported limited distances, the two plants will be close to each other. One of the primary applications for the VHTR would be to supply heat and electricity for the production of hydrogen. There was no assessment of chemical plant safety challenges. The primary application of this PIRT is to support the safety analysis of the NGNP coupled one or more small hydrogen production pilot plants. However, the chemical plant processes to be coupled to the NGNP have not yet been chosen; thus, a broad PIRT assessment was conducted to scope alternative potential applications and test facilities associated with the NGNP. The hazards associated with various chemicals and methods to minimize risks from those hazards are well understood within the chemical industry. Much but not all of the information required to assure safe conditions (separation distance, relative elevation, berms) is known for a reactor coupled to a chemical plant. There is also some experience with nuclear plants in several countries that have produced steam for industrial applications. The specific characteristics of the chemical plant, site layout, and the maximum stored inventories of chemicals can provide the starting point for the safety assessments. While the panel identified events and phenomena of safety significance, there is one added caveat. Multiple high-temperature reactors provide safety-related experience and understanding of reactor safety. In contrast, there have been only limited safety studies of coupled chemical and nuclear plants. The work herein provides a starting point for those studies; but, the general level of understanding of safety in coupling nuclear and chemical plants is less than in other areas of high-temperature reactor safety.

  15. Locating hot and cold-legs in a nuclear powered steam generation system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ekeroth, D.E.; Corletti, M.M.

    1993-11-16

    A nuclear reactor steam generator includes a reactor vessel for heating water and a steam generator with a pump casing at the lowest point on the steam generator. A cold-leg pipe extends horizontally between the steam generator and the reactor vessel to return water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel. The bottom of the cold-leg pipe is at a first height above the bottom of the reactor vessel. A hot-leg pipe with one end connected to the steam generator and a second end connected to the reactor vessel has a first pipe region extending downwardly from the steam generator to a location between the steam generator and the reactor vessel at which a bottom of the hot-leg pipe is at a second height above the bottom of the reactor vessel. A second region extends from that location in a horizontal direction at the second height to the point at which the hot-leg pipe connects to the reactor vessel. A pump is attached to the casing at a location below the first and second heights and returns water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel over the cold-leg. The first height is greater than the second height and the bottom of the steam generator is at a height above the bottom of the reactor vessel that is greater than the first and second heights. A residual heat recovery pump is below the hot-leg and has an inlet line from the hot-leg that slopes down continuously to the pump inlet. 2 figures.

  16. Locating hot and cold-legs in a nuclear powered steam generation system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ekeroth, Douglas E. (Delmont, PA); Corletti, Michael M. (New Kensington, PA)

    1993-01-01

    A nuclear reactor steam generator includes a reactor vessel for heating water and a steam generator with a pump casing at the lowest point on the steam generator. A cold-leg pipe extends horizontally between the steam generator and the reactor vessel to return water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel. The bottom of the cold-leg pipe is at a first height above the bottom of the reactor vessel. A hot-leg pipe with one end connected to the steam generator and a second end connected to the reactor vessel has a first pipe region extending downwardly from the steam generator to a location between the steam generator and the reactor vessel at which a bottom of the hot-leg pipe is at a second height above the bottom of the reactor vessel. A second region extends from that location in a horizontal direction at the second height to the point at which the hot-leg pipe connects to the reactor vessel. A pump is attached to the casing at a location below the first and second heights and returns water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel over the cold-leg. The first height is greater than the second height and the bottom of the steam generator is at a height above the bottom of the reactor vessel that is greater than the first and second heights. A residual heat recovery pump is below the hot-leg and has an inlet line from the hot-leg that slopes down continuously to the pump inlet.

  17. High Efficiency Generation of Hydrogen Fuels using Nuclear Power Annual Report August, 2000 - July 2001

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, L.C.

    2002-11-01

    OAK B188 High Efficiency Generation of Hydrogen Fuels using Nuclear Power Annual Report August 2000 - July 2001. Currently no large scale, cost-effective, environmentally attractive hydrogen production process is available for commercialization nor has such a process been identified. Hydrogen is a promising energy carrier, which potentially could replace the fossil fuels used in the transportation sector of our economy. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are thought to be responsible for global warming. The purpose of this work is to determine the potential for efficient, cost-effective, large-scale production of hydrogen utilizing high temperature heat from an advanced nuclear power station. The benefits of this work will include the generation of a low-polluting transportable energy feedstock in an efficient method that has little or no implication for greenhouse gas emissions from a primary energy source whose availability and sources are domestically controlled. This will help to ensure energy for a future transportation/energy infrastructure that is not influenced/controlled by foreign governments. This report describes work accomplished during the second year (Phase 2) of a three year project whose objective is to ''define an economically feasible concept for production of hydrogen, by nuclear means, using an advanced high temperature nuclear reactor as the energy source.'' The emphasis of the first year (Phase 1) was to evaluate thermochemical processes which offer the potential for efficient, cost-effective, large-scale production of hydrogen from water, in which the primary energy input is high temperature heat from an advanced nuclear reactor and to select one (or, at most, three) for further detailed consideration. Phase 1 met its goals and did select one process, the sulfur-iodine process, for investigation in Phases 2 and 3. The combined goals of Phases 2 and 3 were to select the advanced nuclear reactor best suited to driving the selected thermochemical process and to define the selected reactor and process to the point that capital costs, operating costs and the resultant cost of hydrogen can be estimated. During original contract negotiation, it was necessary to reduce work scope to meet funding limits. As a result, the reactor interface and process will not be iterated to the point that only hydrogen is produced. Rather, hydrogen and electricity will be co-generated and the hydrogen cost will be stated as a function of the electricity sales price.

  18. Potential Applications for Nuclear Energy besides Electricity Generation: AREVA Global Perspective of HTR Potential Market

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Soutworth, Finis; Gauthier, Jean-Claude; Lecomte, Michel; Carre, Franck

    2007-07-01

    Energy supply is increasingly showing up as a major issue for electricity supply, transportation, settlement, and process heat industrial supply including hydrogen production. Nuclear power is part of the solution. For electricity supply, as exemplified in Finland and France, the EPR brings an immediate answer; HTR could bring another solution in some specific cases. For other supply, mostly heat, the HTR brings a solution inaccessible to conventional nuclear power plants for very high or even high temperature. As fossil fuels costs increase and efforts to avoid generation of Greenhouse gases are implemented, a market for nuclear generated process heat will develop. Following active developments in the 80's, HTR have been put on the back burner up to 5 years ago. Light water reactors are widely dominating the nuclear production field today. However, interest in the HTR technology was renewed in the past few years. Several commercial projects are actively promoted, most of them aiming at electricity production. ANTARES is today AREVA's response to the cogeneration market. It distinguishes itself from other concepts with its indirect cycle design powering a combined cycle power plant. Several reasons support this design choice, one of the most important of which is the design flexibility to adapt readily to combined heat and power applications. From the start, AREVA made the choice of such flexibility with the belief that the HTR market is not so much in competition with LWR in the sole electricity market but in the specific added value market of cogeneration and process heat. In view of the volatility of the costs of fossil fuels, AREVA's choice brings to the large industrial heat applications the fuel cost predictability of nuclear fuel with the efficiency of a high temperature heat source free of greenhouse gases emissions. The ANTARES module produces 600 MWth which can be split into the required process heat, the remaining power drives an adapted prorated electric plant. Depending on the process heat temperature and power needs, up to 80 % of the nuclear heat is converted into useful power. An important feature of the design is the standardization of the heat source, as independent as possible of the process heat application. This should expedite licensing. The essential conditions for success include: 1. Timely adapted licensing process and regulations, codes and standards for such application and design; 2. An industry oriented R and D program to meet the technological challenges making the best use of the international collaboration. Gen IV could be the vector; 3. Identification of an end user (or a consortium of) willing to fund a FOAK. (authors)

  19. Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Newly Generated Liquid Waste Demonstration Project Feasibility Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herbst, A.K.

    2000-02-01

    A research, development, and demonstration project for the grouting of newly generated liquid waste (NGLW) at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center is considered feasible. NGLW is expected from process equipment waste, decontamination waste, analytical laboratory waste, fuel storage basin waste water, and high-level liquid waste evaporator condensate. The potential grouted waste would be classed as mixed low-level waste, stabilized and immobilized to meet RCRA LDR disposal in a grouting process in the CPP-604 facility, and then transported to the state.

  20. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs) Volume 1: Main Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ball, Sydney J

    2008-03-01

    A phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) process was conducted for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) design. This design (in the conceptual stage) is a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) that generates both electricity and process heat for hydrogen production. Expert panels identified safety-relevant phenomena, ranked their importance, and assessed the knowledge levels in the areas of accidents and thermal fluids, fission-product transport and dose, high-temperature materials, graphite, and process heat for hydrogen production. This main report summarizes and documents the process and scope of the reviews, noting the major activities and conclusions. The identified phenomena, analyses, rationales, and associated ratings of the phenomena, plus a summary of each panel's findings, are presented. Individual panel reports for these areas are provided as attached volumes to this main report and provide considerably more detail about each panel's deliberations as well as a more complete listing of the phenomena that were evaluated.

  1. Site Selection & Characterization Status Report for Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark Holbrook

    2007-09-01

    In the near future, the US Department of Energy (DOE) will need to make important decisions regarding design and construction of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). One part of making these decisions is considering the potential environmental impacts that this facility may have, if constructed here at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides DOE decision makers with a process to systematically consider potential environmental consequences of agency decisions. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title VI, Subtitel C, Section 644) states that the 'Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) shall have licensing and regulatory authority for any reactor authorized under this subtitle.' This stipulates that the NRC will license the NGNP for operation. The NRC NEPA Regulations (10 CFR Part 51) require tha thte NRC prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a permit to construct a nuclear power plant. The applicant is required to submit an Environmental report (ER) to aid the NRC in complying with NEPA.

  2. Compaction Scale Up and Optimization of Cylindrical Fuel Compacts for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeffrey J. Einerson; Jeffrey A. Phillips; Eric L. Shaber; Scott E. Niedzialek; W. Clay Richardson; Scott G. Nagley

    2012-10-01

    Multiple process approaches have been used historically to manufacture cylindrical nuclear fuel compacts. Scale-up of fuel compacting was required for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project to achieve an economically viable automated production process capable of providing a minimum of 10 compacts/minute with high production yields. In addition, the scale-up effort was required to achieve matrix density equivalent to baseline historical production processes, and allow compacting at fuel packing fractions up to 46% by volume. The scale-up approach of jet milling, fluid-bed overcoating, and hot-press compacting adopted in the U.S. Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) Fuel Development Program involves significant paradigm shifts to capitalize on distinct advantages in simplicity, yield, and elimination of mixed waste. A series of designed experiments have been completed to optimize compaction conditions of time, temperature, and forming pressure using natural uranium oxycarbide (NUCO) fuel. Results from these experiments are included. The scale-up effort is nearing completion with the process installed and operational using nuclear fuel materials. The process is being certified for manufacture of qualification test fuel compacts for the AGR-5/6/7 experiment at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

  3. Method and apparatus for steam mixing a nuclear fueled electricity generation system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tsiklauri, Georgi V. (Richland, WA); Durst, Bruce M. (Kennewick, WA)

    1996-01-01

    A method and apparatus for improving the efficiency and performance of a nuclear electrical generation system that comprises the addition of steam handling equipment to an existing plant that results in a surprising increase in plant performance. More particularly, a gas turbine electrical generation system with heat recovery boiler is installed along with a micro-jet high pressure and a low pressure mixer superheater. Depending upon plant characteristics, the existing moisture separator reheater (MSR) can be either augmented or done away with. The instant invention enables a reduction in T.sub.hot without a derating of the reactor unit, and improves efficiency of the plant's electrical conversion cycle. Coupled with this advantage is a possible extension of the plant's fuel cycle length due to an increased electrical conversion efficiency. The reduction in T.sub.hot further allows for a surprising extension of steam generator life. An additional advantage is the reduction in erosion/corrosion of secondary system components including turbine blades and diaphragms. The gas turbine generator used in the instant invention can also replace or augment existing peak or emergency power needs. Another benefit of the instant invention is the extension of plant life and the reduction of downtime due to refueling.

  4. Method and apparatus for improving the performance of a nuclear power electrical generation system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tsiklauri, Georgi V. (Richland, WA); Durst, Bruce M. (Kennewick, WA)

    1995-01-01

    A method and apparatus for improving the efficiency and performance a of nuclear electrical generation system that comprises the addition of steam handling equipment to an existing plant that results in a surprising increase in plant performance. More particularly, a gas turbine electrical generation system with heat recovery boiler is installed along with a high pressure and a low pressure mixer superheater. Depending upon plant characteristics, the existing moisture separator reheater (MSR) can be either augmented or done away with. The instant invention enables a reduction in T.sub.hot without a derating of the reactor unit, and improves efficiency of the plant's electrical conversion cycle. Coupled with this advantage is a possible extension of the plant's fuel cycle length due to an increased electrical conversion efficiency. The reduction in T.sub.hot further allows for a surprising extension of steam generator life. An additional advantage is the reduction in erosion/corrosion of secondary system components including turbine blades and diaphragms. The gas turbine generator used in the instant invention can also replace or augment existing peak or emergency power needs.

  5. The Next Generation Nuclear Plant Graphite Creep Experiment Irradiation in the Advanced Test Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blaine Grover

    2010-10-01

    The United States Department of Energys Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Program will be irradiating six gas reactor graphite creep experiments in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) located at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The ATR has a long history of irradiation testing in support of reactor development and the INL has been designated as the United States Department of Energys lead laboratory for nuclear energy development. The ATR is one of the worlds premiere test reactors for performing long term, high flux, and/or large volume irradiation test programs. These graphite irradiations are being accomplished to support development of the next generation reactors in the United States. The graphite experiments will be irradiated over the next six to eight years to support development of a graphite irradiation performance data base on the new nuclear grade graphites now available for use in high temperature gas reactors. The goals of the irradiation experiments are to obtain irradiation performance data, including irradiation creep, at different temperatures and loading conditions to support design of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Very High Temperature Gas Reactor, as well as other future gas reactors. The experiments will each consist of a single capsule that will contain six stacks of graphite specimens, with half of the graphite specimens in each stack under a compressive load, while the other half of the specimens will not be subjected to a compressive load during irradiation. The six stacks will have differing compressive loads applied to the top half of each pair of specimen stacks, while a seventh stack will not have a compressive load. The specimens will be irradiated in an inert sweep gas atmosphere with on-line temperature and compressive load monitoring and control. There will also be the capability of sampling the sweep gas effluent to determine if any oxidation or off-gassing of the specimens occurs during initial start-up of the experiment. The first experiment was inserted in the ATR in August 2009 and started its irradiation in September 2009. It is anticipated to complete its irradiation in early calendar 2011. This paper will discuss the design of the experiment including the test train and the temperature and compressive load monitoring, control, and the irradiation experience to date.

  6. Effect of Hurricane Andrew on the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station from August 20--30, 1992. [Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hebdon, F.J.

    1993-03-01

    On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 hurricane, struck the Turkey Point Electrical Generating Station with sustained winds of 145 mph (233 km/h). This is the report of the team that the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) jointly sponsored (1) to review the damage that the hurricane caused the nuclear units and the utility`s actions to prepare for the storm and recover from it, and (2) to compile lessons that might benefit other nuclear reactor facilities.

  7. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Warner, E. S.; Heath, G. A.

    2012-04-01

    A systematic review and harmonization of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature of nuclear electricity generation technologies was performed to determine causes of and, where possible, reduce variability in estimates of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to clarify the state of knowledge and inform decision making. LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are a fraction of traditional fossil sources, but the conditions and assumptions under which nuclear power are deployed can have a significant impact on the magnitude of life cycle GHG emissions relative to renewable technologies. Screening 274 references yielded 27 that reported 99 independent estimates of life cycle GHG emissions from light water reactors (LWRs). The published median, interquartile range (IQR), and range for the pool of LWR life cycle GHG emission estimates were 13, 23, and 220 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO{sub 2}-eq/kWh), respectively. After harmonizing methods to use consistent gross system boundaries and values for several important system parameters, the same statistics were 12, 17, and 110 g CO{sub 2}-eq/kWh, respectively. Harmonization (especially of performance characteristics) clarifies the estimation of central tendency and variability. To explain the remaining variability, several additional, highly influential consequential factors were examined using other methods. These factors included the primary source energy mix, uranium ore grade, and the selected LCA method. For example, a scenario analysis of future global nuclear development examined the effects of a decreasing global uranium market-average ore grade on life cycle GHG emissions. Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO{sub 2}-eq/kWh by 2050.

  8. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1",685,"5,918",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Generation Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",685,"5,918",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to

  9. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials Research and Development Plan (PLN-2803)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. K. Wright; R. N. Wright

    2010-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected the High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production, with an outlet gas temperature in the range of 750°C, and a design service life of 60 years. The reactor design will be a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic, or pebble bed reactor and use low-enriched uranium, Tri-Isotopic (TRISO)-coated fuel. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. Selection of the technology and design configuration for the NGNP must consider both the cost and risk profiles to ensure that the demonstration plant establishes a sound foundation for future commercial deployments. The NGNP challenge is to achieve a significant advancement in nuclear technology while setting the stage for an economically viable deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector soon after 2020. This technology development plan details the additional research and development (R&D) required to design and license the NGNP RPV, assuming that A 508/A 533 is the material of construction. The majority of additional information that is required is related to long-term aging behavior at NGNP vessel temperatures, which are somewhat above those commonly encountered in the existing database from LWR experience. Additional data are also required for the anticipated NGNP environment. An assessment of required R&D for a Grade 91 vessel has been retained from the first revision of the R&D plan in Appendix B in somewhat less detail. Considerably more development is required for this steel compared to A 508/A 533 including additional irradiation testing for expected NGNP operating temperatures, high-temperature mechanical properties, and extensive studies of long-term microstructural stability.

  10. Research and Development Technology Development Roadmaps for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ian McKirdy

    2011-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for process heat, hydrogen and electricity production. The reactor will be graphite moderated with helium as the primary coolant and may be either prismatic or pebble-bed. Although, final design features have not yet been determined. Research and Development (R&D) activities are proceeding on those known plant systems to mature the technology, codify the materials for specific applications, and demonstrate the component and system viability in NGNP relevant and integrated environments. Collectively these R&D activities serve to reduce the project risk and enhance the probability of on-budget, on-schedule completion and NRC licensing. As the design progresses, in more detail, toward final design and approval for construction, selected components, which have not been used in a similar application, in a relevant environment nor integrated with other components and systems, must be tested to demonstrate viability at reduced scales and simulations prior to full scale operation. This report and its R&D TDRMs present the path forward and its significance in assuring technical readiness to perform the desired function by: Choreographing the integration between design and R&D activities; and proving selected design components in relevant applications.

  11. Structural integrity analysis of the degraded drywell containment at the Oyster Creek Nuclear generating station.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Petti, Jason P.

    2007-01-01

    This study examines the effects of the degradation experienced in the steel drywell containment at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Specifically, the structural integrity of the containment shell is examined in terms of the stress limits using the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section III, Division I, Subsection NE, and examined in terms of buckling (stability) using the ASME B&PV Code Case N-284. Degradation of the steel containment shell (drywell) at Oyster Creek was first observed during an outage in the mid-1980s. Subsequent inspections discovered reductions in the shell thickness due to corrosion throughout the containment. Specifically, significant corrosion occurred in the sandbed region of the lower sphere. Since the presence of the wet sand provided an environment which supported corrosion, a series of analyses were conducted by GE Nuclear Energy in the early 1990s. These analyses examined the effects of the degradation on the structural integrity. The current study adopts many of the same assumptions and data used in the previous GE study. However, the additional computational recourses available today enable the construction of a larger and more sophisticated structural model.

  12. Considerations Associated with Reactor Technology Selection for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.E. Demick

    2010-09-01

    At the inception of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project and during predecessor activities, alternative reactor technologies have been evaluated to determine the technology that best fulfills the functional and performance requirements of the targeted energy applications and market. Unlike the case of electric power generation where the reactor performance is primarily expressed in terms of economics, the targeted energy applications involve industrial applications that have specific needs in terms of acceptable heat transport fluids and the associated thermodynamic conditions. Hence, to be of interest to these industrial energy applications, the alternative reactor technologies are weighed in terms of the reactor coolant/heat transport fluid, achievable reactor outlet temperature, and practicality of operations to achieve the very high reliability demands associated with the petrochemical, petroleum, metals and related industries. These evaluations have concluded that the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) can uniquely provide the required ranges of energy needs for these target applications, do so with promising economics, and can be commercialized with reasonable development risk in the time frames of current industry interest i.e., within the next 10-15 years.

  13. Threatened and endangered species evaluation for 75 licensed commercial nuclear power generating plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sackschewsky, M.R.

    1997-03-01

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and related implementing regulations of the jurisdictional federal agencies, the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Interior, at 50 CFR Part 17. 1, et seq., require that federal agencies ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out under their jurisdiction is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats for such species. The issuance and maintenance of a federal license, such as a construction permit or operating license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a commercial nuclear power generating facility is a federal action under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, and is therefore subject to the provisions of the ESA. The U.S. Department of the Interior (through the Fish and Wildlife Service), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, share responsibility for administration of the ESA. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) deals with species that inhabit marine environments and anadromous fish, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory birds. A species (or other distinct taxonomic unit such as subspecies, variety, and for vertebrates, distinct population units) may be classified for protection as `endangered` when it is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A `threatened` classification is provided to those animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. As of February 1997, there were about 1067 species listed under the ESA in the United States. Additionally there were approximately 125 species currently proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, and another 183 species considered to be candidates for formal listing proposals.

  14. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials Research and Development Plan (PLN-2803)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. K. Wright; R. N. Wright

    2008-04-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy has selected the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production. It will have an outlet gas temperature in the range of 900°C and a plant design service life of 60 years. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic, or pebble-bed reactor and use low-enriched uranium, Tri-Isotopic-coated fuel. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The NGNP Materials Research and Development Program is responsible for performing research and development on likely NGNP materials in support of the NGNP design, licensing, and construction activities. Selection of the technology and design configuration for the NGNP must consider both the cost and risk profiles to ensure that the demonstration plant establishes a sound foundation for future commercial deployments. The NGNP challenge is to achieve a significant advancement in nuclear technology while setting the stage for an economically viable deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector soon after 2020. Studies of potential Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) steels have been carried out as part of the pre-conceptual design studies. These design studies generally focus on American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code status of the steels, temperature limits, and allowable stresses. Three realistic candidate materials have been identified by this process: conventional light water reactor RPV steels A508/533, 2¼Cr-1Mo in the annealed condition, and modified 9Cr 1Mo ferritic martenistic steel. Based on superior strength and higher temperature limits, the modified 9Cr-1Mo steel has been identified by the majority of design engineers as the preferred choice for the RPV. All of the vendors have concluded, however, that with adequate engineered cooling of the vessel, the A508/533 steels are also acceptable.

  15. Preliminary materials selection issues for the next generation nuclear plant reactor pressure vessel.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Natesan, K.; Majumdar, S.; Shankar, P. S.; Shah, V. N.; Nuclear Engineering Division

    2007-03-21

    In the coming decades, the United States and the entire world will need energy supplies to meet the growing demands due to population increase and increase in consumption due to global industrialization. One of the reactor system concepts, the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR), with helium as the coolant, has been identified as uniquely suited for producing hydrogen without consumption of fossil fuels or the emission of greenhouse gases [Generation IV 2002]. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected this system for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project, to demonstrate emissions-free nuclear-assisted electricity and hydrogen production within the next 15 years. The NGNP reference concepts are helium-cooled, graphite-moderated, thermal neutron spectrum reactors with a design goal outlet helium temperature of {approx}1000 C [MacDonald et al. 2004]. The reactor core could be either a prismatic graphite block type core or a pebble bed core. The use of molten salt coolant, especially for the transfer of heat to hydrogen production, is also being considered. The NGNP is expected to produce both electricity and hydrogen. The process heat for hydrogen production will be transferred to the hydrogen plant through an intermediate heat exchanger (IHX). The basic technology for the NGNP has been established in the former high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) and demonstration plants (DRAGON, Peach Bottom, AVR, Fort St. Vrain, and THTR). In addition, the technologies for the NGNP are being advanced in the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) project, and the South African state utility ESKOM-sponsored project to develop the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Furthermore, the Japanese HTTR and Chinese HTR-10 test reactors are demonstrating the feasibility of some of the planned components and materials. The proposed high operating temperatures in the VHTR place significant constraints on the choice of material selected for the reactor pressure vessel for both the PBMR and prismatic design. The main focus of this report is the RPV for both design concepts with emphasis on material selection.

  16. Maryland Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Unit 2","1,705","13,994",100.0,"Calvert Cliffs Nuclear PP Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","1,705","13,994",100.0 "Note: Totals

  17. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Methods Research and Development Technical Program Plan -- PLN-2498

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Richard R. Schultz; Abderrafi M. Ougouag; David W. Nigg; Hans D. Gougar; Richard W. Johnson; William K. Terry; Chang H. Oh; Donald W. McEligot; Gary W. Johnsen; Glenn E. McCreery; Woo Y. Yoon; James W. Sterbentz; J. Steve Herring; Temitope A. Taiwo; Thomas Y. C. Wei; William D. Pointer; Won S. Yang; Michael T. Farmer; Hussein S. Khalil; Madeline A. Feltus

    2008-09-01

    One of the great challenges of designing and licensing the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) is to confirm that the intended VHTR analysis tools can be used confidently to make decisions and to assure all that the reactor systems are safe and meet the performance objectives of the Generation IV Program. The research and development (R&D) projects defined in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Design Methods Development and Validation Program will ensure that the tools used to perform the required calculations and analyses can be trusted. The Methods R&D tasks are designed to ensure that the calculational envelope of the tools used to analyze the VHTR reactor systems encompasses, or is larger than, the operational and transient envelope of the VHTR itself. The Methods R&D focuses on the development of tools to assess the neutronic and thermal fluid behavior of the plant. The fuel behavior and fission product transport models are discussed in the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) program plan. Various stress analysis and mechanical design tools will also need to be developed and validated and will ultimately also be included in the Methods R&D Program Plan. The calculational envelope of the neutronics and thermal-fluids software tools intended to be used on the NGNP is defined by the scenarios and phenomena that these tools can calculate with confidence. The software tools can only be used confidently when the results they produce have been shown to be in reasonable agreement with first-principle results, thought-problems, and data that describe the highly ranked phenomena inherent in all operational conditions and important accident scenarios for the VHTR.

  18. US Central Station Nuclear Electric Generating Units: significant milestones. (Status as of April 1, 1980)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-06-01

    Construction and operational milestones are tabulated for US nuclear power plants. Data are presented on nuclear steam supply system orders. A schedule of commercial operation through 1990 is given.

  19. Observations on A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems: Technical Roadmap Report

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The development of advanced nuclear energy systems in the U.S. will depend greatly on the continued success of currently operating light water nuclear power plants and the ordering of new...

  20. Characteristics of colloids generated during the corrosion of nuclear waste glasses in groundwater

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Feng, X.; Buck, E.C.; Mertz, C.; Bates, J.K.; Cunnane, J.C.; Chaiko, D.

    1993-10-01

    Aqueous colloidal suspensions were generated by reacting nuclear waste glasses with groundwater at 90{degrees}C at different ratios of the glass surface area to solution volume (S/V). The colloids have been characterized in terms of size, charge, identity, and stability with respect to salt concentration, pH, and time, by examination using dynamic light scattering, electrophoretic mobility, and transmission electron microscopy. The colloids are predominately produced by precipitation from solution, possibly with contribution from reacted layers that have spallated from the glass. These colloids are silicon-rich minerals. The colloidal suspensions agglomerate when the salinity of the solutions increase. The following implications for modeling the colloidal transport of contaminants have been derived from this study: (1) The sources of the colloids are not only solubility-limited real colloids and the pseudo colloids formed by adsorption of radionuclides onto a groundwater colloid, but also from the spalled surface layers of reacted waste glasses. (2) In a repository, the local environment is likely to be glass-reaction dominated and the salt concentration is likely to be high, leading to rapid colloid agglomeration and settling; thus, colloid transport may be insignificant. (3) If large volumes of groundwater contact the glass reaction site, the precipitated colloids may become resuspended, and colloid transport may become important. (4) Under most conditions, the colloids are negatively charged and will deposit readily on positively charged surfaces. Negatively charged surfaces will, in general, facilitate colloid stability and transport.

  1. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Intermediate Heat Exchanger Materials Research and Development Plan (PLN-2804)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. K. Wright

    2008-04-01

    DOE has selected the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production. It will have an outlet gas temperature in the range of 900°C and a plant design service life of 60 years. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble-bed reactor and use low-enriched uranium, Tri-Isotopic (TRISO)-coated fuel. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The NGNP Materials Research and Development (R&D) Program is responsible for performing R&D on likely NGNP materials in support of the NGNP design, licensing, and construction activities. Today’s high-temperature alloys and associated ASME Codes for reactor applications are approved up to 760°C. However, some primary system components, such as the Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for the NGNP will require use of materials that can withstand higher temperatures. The thermal, environmental, and service life conditions of the NGNP will make selection and qualification of some high-temperature materials a significant challenge. Examples include materials for the core barrel and core internals, such as the control rod sleeves. The requirements of the materials for the IHX are among the most demanding. Selection of the technology and design configuration for the NGNP must consider both the cost and risk profiles to ensure that the demonstration plant establishes a sound foundation for future commercial deployments. The NGNP challenge is to achieve a significant advancement in nuclear technology while at the same time setting the stage for an economically viable deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector soon after 2020. A number of solid solution strengthened nickel based alloys have been considered for application in heat exchangers and core internals for the NGNP. The primary candidates are Inconel 617, Haynes 230, Incoloy 800H and Hastelloy XR. Based on the technical maturity, availability in required product forms, experience base, and high temperature mechanical properties all of the vendor pre-conceptual design studies have specified Alloy 617 as the material of choice for heat exchangers. Also a draft code case for Alloy 617 was developed previously. Although action was suspended before the code case was accepted by ASME, this draft code case provides a significant head start for achieving codification of the material. Similarly, Alloy 800H is the material of choice for control rod sleeves. In addition to the above listed considerations, Alloy 800H is already listed in the nuclear section of the ASME Code; although the maximum use temperature and time need to be increased.

  2. “Full Model” Nuclear Data and Covariance Evaluation Process Using TALYS, Total Monte Carlo and Backward-forward Monte Carlo

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bauge, E.

    2015-01-15

    The “Full model” evaluation process, that is used in CEA DAM DIF to evaluate nuclear data in the continuum region, makes extended use of nuclear models implemented in the TALYS code to account for experimental data (both differential and integral) by varying the parameters of these models until a satisfactory description of these experimental data is reached. For the evaluation of the covariance data associated with this evaluated data, the Backward-forward Monte Carlo (BFMC) method was devised in such a way that it mirrors the process of the “Full model” evaluation method. When coupled with the Total Monte Carlo method via the T6 system developed by NRG Petten, the BFMC method allows to make use of integral experiments to constrain the distribution of model parameters, and hence the distribution of derived observables and their covariance matrix. Together, TALYS, TMC, BFMC, and T6, constitute a powerful integrated tool for nuclear data evaluation, that allows for evaluation of nuclear data and the associated covariance matrix, all at once, making good use of all the available experimental information to drive the distribution of the model parameters and the derived observables.

  3. STARLIB: A NEXT-GENERATION REACTION-RATE LIBRARY FOR NUCLEAR ASTROPHYSICS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sallaska, A. L.; Iliadis, C.; Champange, A. E.; Goriely, S.; Starrfield, S.; Timmes, F. X.

    2013-07-15

    STARLIB is a next-generation, all-purpose nuclear reaction-rate library. For the first time, this library provides the rate probability density at all temperature grid points for convenient implementation in models of stellar phenomena. The recommended rate and its associated uncertainties are also included. Currently, uncertainties are absent from all other rate libraries, and, although estimates have been attempted in previous evaluations and compilations, these are generally not based on rigorous statistical definitions. A common standard for deriving uncertainties is clearly warranted. STARLIB represents a first step in addressing this deficiency by providing a tabular, up-to-date database that supplies not only the rate and its uncertainty but also its distribution. Because a majority of rates are lognormally distributed, this allows the construction of rate probability densities from the columns of STARLIB. This structure is based on a recently suggested Monte Carlo method to calculate reaction rates, where uncertainties are rigorously defined. In STARLIB, experimental rates are supplemented with: (1) theoretical TALYS rates for reactions for which no experimental input is available, and (2) laboratory and theoretical weak rates. STARLIB includes all types of reactions of astrophysical interest to Z = 83, such as (p, {gamma}), (p, {alpha}), ({alpha}, n), and corresponding reverse rates. Strong rates account for thermal target excitations. Here, we summarize our Monte Carlo formalism, introduce the library, compare methods of correcting rates for stellar environments, and discuss how to implement our library in Monte Carlo nucleosynthesis studies. We also present a method for accessing STARLIB on the Internet and outline updated Monte Carlo-based rates.

  4. Design of Radiation-Tolerant Structural Alloys for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Todd R. Allen

    2009-06-30

    This project will use proton irradiation to further understand the microstructural stability of ceramics being considered as matrix material for advanced nuclear fuels.

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Vermont profile Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 1Municipal Solid Waste net generation is allocated according to the

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Vermont profile Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 1Municipal Solid Waste net generation is allocated according to the

  7. Illinois Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Braidwood Generation Station Unit 1, Unit 2","2,330","19,200",20.0,"Exelon Nuclear" "Byron Generating Station Unit 1, Unit 2","2,300","19,856",20.6,"Exelon

  8. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Oyster Creek Unit 1",615,"4,601",14.0,"Exelon Nuclear" "PSEG Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1","1,161","9,439",28.8,"PSEG Nuclear LLC" "PSEG Salem Generating

  9. Electronic constant current and current pulse signal generator for nuclear instrumentation testing

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, R.A.

    1994-04-19

    Circuitry is described for testing the ability of an intermediate range nuclear instrument to detect and measure a constant current and a periodic current pulse. The invention simulates the resistance and capacitance of the signal connection of a nuclear instrument ion chamber detector and interconnecting cable. An LED flasher/oscillator illuminates an LED at a periodic rate established by a timing capacitor and circuitry internal to the flasher/oscillator. When the LED is on, a periodic current pulse is applied to the instrument. When the LED is off, a constant current is applied. An inductor opposes battery current flow when the LED is on. 1 figures.

  10. Electronic constant current and current pulse signal generator for nuclear instrumentation testing

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Roger A.

    1994-01-01

    Circuitry for testing the ability of an intermediate range nuclear instrut to detect and measure a constant current and a periodic current pulse. The invention simulates the resistance and capacitance of the signal connection of a nuclear instrument ion chamber detector and interconnecting cable. An LED flasher/oscillator illuminates an LED at a periodic rate established by a timing capacitor and circuitry internal to the flasher/oscillator. When the LED is on, a periodic current pulse is applied to the instrument. When the LED is off, a constant current is applied. An inductor opposes battery current flow when the LED is on.

  11. Replacement energy costs for nuclear electricity-generating units in the United States: 1997--2001. Volume 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    VanKuiken, J.C.; Guziel, K.A.; Tompkins, M.M.; Buehring, W.A.

    1997-09-01

    This report updates previous estimates of replacement energy costs for potential short-term shutdowns of 109 US nuclear electricity-generating units. This information was developed to assist the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in its regulatory impact analyses, specifically those that examine the impacts of proposed regulations requiring retrofitting of or safety modifications to nuclear reactors. Such actions might necessitate shutdowns of nuclear power plants while these changes are being implemented. The change in energy cost represents one factor that the NRC must consider when deciding to require a particular modification. Cost estimates were derived from probabilistic production cost simulations of pooled utility system operations. Factors affecting replacement energy costs, such as random unit failures, maintenance and refueling requirements, and load variations, are treated in the analysis. This report describes an abbreviated analytical approach as it was adopted to update the cost estimates published in NUREG/CR-4012, Vol. 3. The updates were made to extend the time frame of cost estimates and to account for recent changes in utility system conditions, such as change in fuel prices, construction and retirement schedules, and system demand projects.

  12. Worldwide assessment of steam-generator problems in pressurized-water-reactor nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Woo, H.H.; Lu, S.C.

    1981-09-15

    Objective is to assess the reliability of steam generators of pressurized water reactor (PWR) power plants in the United States and abroad. The assessment is based on operation experience of both domestic and foreign PWR plants. The approach taken is to collect and review papers and reports available from the literature as well as information obtained by contacting research institutes both here and abroad. This report presents the results of the assessment. It contains a general background of PWR plant operations, plant types, and materials used in PWR plants. A review of the worldwide distribution of PWR plants is also given. The report describes in detail the degradation problems discovered in PWR steam generators: their causes, their impacts on the performance of steam generators, and the actions to mitigate and avoid them. One chapter is devoted to operating experience of PWR steam generators in foreign countries. Another discusses the improvements in future steam generator design.

  13. nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2%2A en U.S-, Japan Exchange Best Practices on Nuclear Emergency Response http:nnsa.energy.govmediaroompressreleasesu.s-japan-exchange-best-practices-nuclear-emergency-respon...

  14. California Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Unit 2","2,240","18,430",57.2,"Pacific Gas & Electric Co" "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2, Unit

  15. Kansas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1","1,160","9,556",100.0,"Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,160","9,556",100.0

  16. Texas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Comanche Peak Unit 1, Unit 2","2,406","20,208",48.9,"Luminant Generation Company LLC" "South Texas Project Unit 1, Unit 2","2,560","21,127",51.1,"STP Nuclear

  17. NERI Final Project Report: On-Line Intelligent Self-Diagnostic Monitoring System for Next Generation Nuclear Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bond, Leonard J.; Jarrell, Donald B.; Koehler, Theresa M.; Meador, Richard J.; Sisk, Daniel R.; Hatley, Darrel D.; Watkins, Kenneth S.; Chai, Jangbom; Kim, Wooshik

    2003-06-20

    This project provides a proof-of-principle technology demonstration for SDMS, where a distributed suite of sensors is integrated with active components and passive structures of types expected to be encountered in next generation nuclear power reactor and plant systems. The project employs state-of-the-art operational sensors, advanced stressor-based instrumentation, distributed computing, RF data network modules and signal processing to improve the monitoring and assessment of the power reactor system and gives data that is used to provide prognostics capabilities.

  18. Accelerated development of Zr-containing new generation ferritic steels for advanced nuclear reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tan, Lizhen; Yang, Ying; Sridharan, K.

    2015-12-01

    The mission of the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program is to develop crosscutting technologies for nuclear energy applications. Advanced structural materials with superior performance at elevated temperatures are always desired for nuclear reactors, which can improve reactor economics, safety margins, and design flexibility. They benefit not only new reactors, including advanced light water reactors (LWRs) and fast reactors such as the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) that is primarily designed for management of high-level wastes, but also life extension of the existing fleet when component exchange is needed. Developing and utilizing the modern materials science tools (experimental, theoretical, and computational tools) is an important path to more efficient alloy development and process optimization. The ultimate goal of this project is, with the aid of computational modeling tools, to accelerate the development of Zr-bearing ferritic alloys that can be fabricated using conventional steelmaking methods. The new alloys are expected to have superior high-temperature creep performance and excellent radiation resistance as compared to Grade 91. The designed alloys were fabricated using arc-melting and drop-casting, followed by hot rolling and conventional heat treatments. Comprehensive experimental studies have been conducted on the developed alloys to evaluate their hardness, tensile properties, creep resistance, Charpy impact toughness, and aging resistance, as well as resistance to proton and heavy ion (Fe2+) irradiation.

  19. Los Alamos National Laboratory new generation standard nuclear material storage container - the SAVY4000 design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stone, Timothy Amos

    2010-01-01

    Incidents involving release of nuclear materials stored in containers of convenience such as food pack cans, slip lid taped cans, paint cans, etc. has resulted in defense board concerns over the lack of prescriptive performance requirements for interim storage of nuclear materials. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has shared in these incidents and in response proactively moved into developing a performance based standard involving storage of nuclear material (RD003). This RD003 requirements document has sense been updated to reflect requirements as identified with recently issued DOE M 441.1-1 'Nuclear Material Packaging Manual'. The new packaging manual was issued at the encouragement of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board with a clear directive for protecting the worker from exposure due to loss of containment of stored materials. The Manual specifies a detailed and all inclusive approach to achieve a high level of protection; from package design & performance requirements, design life determinations of limited life components, authorized contents evaluations, and surveillance/maintenance to ensure in use package integrity over time. Materials in scope involve those stored outside an approved engineered-contamination barrier that would result in a worker exposure of in excess of 5 rem Committed Effective Does Equivalent (CEDE). Key aspects of meeting the challenge as developed around the SAVY-3000 vented storage container design will be discussed. Design performance and acceptance criteria against the manual, bounding conditions as established that the user must ensure are met to authorize contents in the package (based upon the activity of heat-source plutonium (90% Pu-238) oxide, which bounds the requirements for weapons-grade plutonium oxide), interface as a safety class system within the facility under the LANL plutonium facility DSA, design life determinations for limited life components, and a sense of design specific surveillance program implementation as LANL moves forward into production and use of the SAVY-3000 will all be addressed. The SAVY-3000 is intended as a work horse package for the DOE complex as a vented storage container primarily for plutonium in solid form.

  20. Risk perception & strategic decision making :general insights, a framework, and specific application to electricity generation using nuclear energy.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brewer, Jeffrey D.

    2005-11-01

    The objective of this report is to promote increased understanding of decision making processes and hopefully to enable improved decision making regarding high-consequence, highly sophisticated technological systems. This report brings together insights regarding risk perception and decision making across domains ranging from nuclear power technology safety, cognitive psychology, economics, science education, public policy, and neural science (to name a few). It forms them into a unique, coherent, concise framework, and list of strategies to aid in decision making. It is suggested that all decision makers, whether ordinary citizens, academics, or political leaders, ought to cultivate their abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff in these types of decision making instances. The wheat includes proper data sources and helpful human decision making heuristics; these should be sought. The chaff includes ''unhelpful biases'' that hinder proper interpretation of available data and lead people unwittingly toward inappropriate decision making ''strategies''; obviously, these should be avoided. It is further proposed that successfully accomplishing the wheat vs. chaff separation is very difficult, yet tenable. This report hopes to expose and facilitate navigation away from decision-making traps which often ensnare the unwary. Furthermore, it is emphasized that one's personal decision making biases can be examined, and tools can be provided allowing better means to generate, evaluate, and select among decision options. Many examples in this report are tailored to the energy domain (esp. nuclear power for electricity generation). The decision making framework and approach presented here are applicable to any high-consequence, highly sophisticated technological system.

  1. Challenges to Integration of Safety and Reliability with Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    H. Khalil; P. F. Peterson; R. Bari; G. -L. Fiorini; T. Leahy; R. Versluis

    2012-07-01

    The optimization of a nuclear energy system's performance requires an integrated consideration of multiple design goals - sustainability, safety and reliability (S&R), proliferation resistance and physical protection (PR&PP), and economics - as well as careful evaluation of trade-offs for different system design and operating parameters. Design approaches motivated by each of the goal areas (in isolation from the other goal areas) may be mutually compatible or in conflict. However, no systematic methodology approach has yet been developed to identify and maximize synergies and optimally balance conflicts across the possible design configurations and operating modes of a nuclear energy system. Because most Generation IV systems are at an early stage of development, design, and assessment, designers and analysts are only beginning to identify synergies and conflicts between PR&PP, S&R, and economics goals. The close coupling between PR&PP and S&R goals has motivated early attention within the Generation IV International Forum to their integrated consideration to facilitate the optimization of their effects and the minimization of potential conflicts. This paper discusses the status of this work.

  2. Mechanisms Governing the Creep Behavior of High Temperature Alloys for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vasudevan, Vijay; Carroll, Laura; Sham, Sam

    2015-04-06

    This research project, which includes collaborators from INL and ORNL, focuses on the study of alloy 617 and alloy 800H that are candidates for applications as intermediate heat exchangers in GEN IV nuclear reactors, with an emphasis on the effects of grain size, grain boundaries and second phases on the creep properties; the mechanisms of dislocation creep, diffusional creep and cavitation; the onset of tertiary creep; and theoretical modeling for long-term predictions of materials behavior and for high temperature alloy design.

  3. Table 11.5a Emissions From Energy Consumption for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output: Total (All Sectors), 1989-2010 (Sum of Tables 11.5b and 11.5c; Metric Tons of Gas)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a Emissions From Energy Consumption for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output: Total (All Sectors), 1989-2010 (Sum of Tables 11.5b and 11.5c; Metric Tons of Gas) Year Carbon Dioxide 1 Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides Coal 2 Natural Gas 3 Petroleum 4 Geo- thermal 5 Non- Biomass Waste 6 Total Coal 2 Natural Gas 3 Petroleum 4 Other 7 Total Coal 2 Natural Gas 3 Petroleum 4 Other 7 Total 1989 1,573,566,415 218,383,703 145,398,976 363,247 5,590,014 1,943,302,355 14,468,564 1,059 984,406

  4. Fuzzy Logic Controller Architecture for Water Level Control in Nuclear Power Plant Steam Generator (SG) Using ANFIS Training Method

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vosoughi, Naser; Naseri, Zahra

    2002-07-01

    Since suitable control of water level can greatly enhance the operation of a power station, a Fuzzy logic controller architecture is applied to show desired control of the water level in a Nuclear steam generator. with regard to the physics of the system, it is shown that two inputs, a single output and the least number of rules (9 rules) are considered for a controller, and the ANFIS training method is employed to model functions in a controlled system. By using ANFIS training method, initial member functions will be trained and appropriate functions are generated to control water level inside the steam generators while using the stated rules. The proposed architecture can construct an input output mapping based on both human knowledge (in from of Fuzzy if then rules) and stipulated input output data. In this paper with a simple test it has been shown that the architecture fuzzy logic controller has a reasonable response to one step input at a constant power. Through computer simulation, it is found that Fuzzy logic controller is suitable, especially for the water level deviation and abrupt steam flow disturbances that are typical in the existing power plant. (authors)

  5. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As clean energy increasingly becomes part of the national dialogue, lenders, utilities, and lawmakers need the most comprehensive and accurate information on GHG emissions from various sources of energy to inform policy, planning, and investment decisions. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently led the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Harmonization Project, a study that gives decision makers and investors more precise estimates of life cycle GHG emissions for renewable and conventional generation, clarifying inconsistent and conflicting estimates in the published literature, and reducing uncertainty.

  6. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1, Unit 2","1,835","15,023",100.0,"Entergy Arkansas Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","1,835","15,023",100.0

  7. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Millstone Unit 2, Unit 3","2,103","16,750",100.0,"Dominion Nuclear Conn Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","2,103","16,750",100.0

  8. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Sequoyah Unit 1, Unit 2","2,278","18,001",64.9,"Tennessee Valley Authority" "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1","1,123","9,738",35.1,"Tennessee Valley

  9. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Beaver Valley Unit 1, Unit 2","1,777","14,994",19.3,"FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company" "Limerick Unit 1, Unit 2","2,264","18,926",24.3,"Exelon

  10. Vermont Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Vermont Yankee Unit 1",620,"4,782",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",620,"4,782",100.0

  11. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Kewaunee Unit 1",566,"4,990",37.6,"Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc." "Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Unit 2","1,018","8,291",62.4,"NextEra Energy Point Beach

  12. Arizona Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Palo Verde Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3","3,937","31,200",100.0,"Arizona Public Service Co" "1 Plant 3 Reactors","3,937","31,200",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of

  13. Missouri Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Callaway Unit 1","1,190","8,996",100.0,"Union Electric Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,190","8,996",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to

  14. High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors Lessons Learned Applicable to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. M. Beck; L. F. Pincock

    2011-04-01

    The purpose of this report is to identify possible issues highlighted by these lessons learned that could apply to the NGNP in reducing technical risks commensurate with the current phase of design. Some of the lessons learned have been applied to the NGNP and documented in the Preconceptual Design Report. These are addressed in the background section of this document and include, for example, the decision to use TRISO fuel rather than BISO fuel used in the Peach Bottom reactor; the use of a reactor pressure vessel rather than prestressed concrete found in Fort St. Vrain; and the use of helium as a primary coolant rather than CO2. Other lessons learned, 68 in total, are documented in Sections 2 through 6 and will be applied, as appropriate, in advancing phases of design. The lessons learned are derived from both negative and positive outcomes from prior HTGR experiences. Lessons learned are grouped according to the plant, areas, systems, subsystems, and components defined in the NGNP Preconceptual Design Report, and subsequent NGNP project documents.

  15. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a New Technology for Extraction of Insoluble Impurities from Nuclear Power Plant Steam Generators with Purge Water

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bud'ko, I. O.; Zhukov, A. G.

    2013-11-15

    An experimental technology for the removal of insoluble impurities from a horizontal steam generator with purge water during planned shutdowns of the power generating unit is improved through a more representative determination of the concentration of impurities in the purge water ahead of the water cleanup facility and a more precise effective time for the duration of the purge process. Tests with the improved technique at power generating unit No. 1 of the Rostov Nuclear Power Plant show that the efficiency with which insoluble impurities are removed from the steam generator volume was more than two orders of magnitude greater than under the standard regulations.

  16. On-Line Monitoring and Diagnostics of the Integrity of Nuclear Plant Steam Generators and Heat Exchangers, Volumes 1, 2.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Upadhyaya, Belle R.; Hines, J. Wesley; Lu, Baofu; Huang, Xuedong; Penha, Rosani, L.; Perillo, Sergio, R.; Zhao, Ke

    2005-06-03

    The overall purpose of this Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) project was to integrate new, innovative, and existing technologies to develop a fault diagnostics and characterization system for nuclear plant steam generators (SG) and heat exchangers (HX). Issues related to system level degradation of SG and HX tubing, including tube fouling, performance under reduced heat transfer area, and the damage caused by stress corrosion cracking, are the important factors that influence overall plant operation, maintenance, and economic viability of nuclear power systems. The research at The University of Tennessee focused on the development of techniques for monitoring process and structural integrity of steam generators and heat exchangers. The objectives of the project were accomplished by the completion of the following tasks. All the objectives were accomplished during the project period. This report summarizes the research and development activities, results, and accomplishments during June 2001 ???????????????????????????????? September 2004. ???????????????????????????????· Development and testing of a high-fidelity nodal model of a U-tube steam generator (UTSG) to simulate the effects of fouling and to generate a database representing normal and degraded process conditions. Application of the group method of data handling (GMDH) method for process variable prediction. ???????????????????????????????· Development of a laboratory test module to simulate particulate fouling of HX tubes and its effect on overall thermal resistance. Application of the GMDH technique to predict HX fluid temperatures, and to compare with the calculated thermal resistance. ???????????????????????????????· Development of a hybrid modeling technique for process diagnosis and its evaluation using laboratory heat exchanger test data. ???????????????????????????????· Development and testing of a sensor suite using piezo-electric devices for monitoring structural integrity of both flat plates (beams) and tubing. Experiments were performed in air, and in water with and without bubbly flow. ???????????????????????????????· Development of advanced signal processing methods using wavelet transforms and image processing techniques for isolating flaw types. ???????????????????????????????· Development and implementation of a new nonlinear and non-stationary signal processing method, called the Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), for flaw detection and location. This is a more robust and adaptive approach compared to the wavelet transform

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arizona Nuclear Profile 2010 Arizona profile Arizona total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa Nuclear Profile 2010 Iowa profile Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 .0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Kansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Kansas profile Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi Nuclear Profile 2010 Mississippi profile Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 18 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Missouri Nuclear Profile 2010 Missouri profile Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska Nuclear Profile 2010 Nebraska profile Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,368 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,864 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Arizona Nuclear Profile 2010 Arizona profile Arizona total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Iowa Nuclear Profile 2010 Iowa profile Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 .0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Kansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Kansas profile Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Mississippi Nuclear Profile 2010 Mississippi profile Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 18 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Missouri Nuclear Profile 2010 Missouri profile Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nebraska Nuclear Profile 2010 Nebraska profile Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,368 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,864 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Ohio Nuclear Profile 2010 Ohio profile Ohio total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,134 6.5 15,805 11.0 Coal 21,360 64.6 117,828 82.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 101 0.3 429 0.3 Natural Gas 8,203 24.8 7,128 5.0 Other 1 123 0.4 266 0.2 Other Renewable1 130 0.4 700 0.5 Petroleum 1,019 3.1 1,442 1.0 Total

  10. Washington Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Columbia Generating Station Unit 2","1,097","9,241",100.0,"Energy Northwest" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,097","9,241",100.0

  11. ISO standardization of scaling factor method for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes generated at nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kashiwagi, Makoto; Masui, Hideki; Denda, Yasutaka; James, David; Lantes, Bertrand; Mueller, Wolfgang; Garamszeghy, Mike; Leganes, Jose Luis; Maxeiner, Harald; Van Velzen, Leo

    2007-07-01

    Low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes (L-ILW ) generated at nuclear power plants are disposed of in various countries. In the disposal of such wastes, it is required that the radioactivity concentrations of waste packages should be declared with respect to difficult-to-measure nuclides (DTM nuclides), such as C-14, Ni-63 and a-emitting nuclides, which are often limited to maximum values in disposal licenses, safety cases and/or regulations for maximum radioactive concentrations. To fulfill this requirement, the Scaling Factor method (SF method) has been applied in various countries as a principal method for determining the concentrations of DTM nuclides. In the SF method, the concentrations of DTM nuclides are determined by multiplying the concentrations of certain key nuclides by SF values (the determined ratios of radioactive concentration between DTM nuclides and those key nuclides). The SF values used as conversion factors are determined from the correlation between DTM nuclides and key nuclides such as Co-60. The concentrations of key nuclides are determined by {gamma} ray measurements which can be made comparatively easily from outside the waste package. The SF values are calculated based on the data obtained from the radiochemical analysis of waste samples. The use of SFs, which are empirically based on analytical data, has become established as a widely recognized 'de facto standard'. A number of countries have independently collected nuclide data by analysis over many years and each has developed its own SF method, but all the SF methods that have been adopted are similar. The project team for standardization had been organized for establishing this SF method as a 'de jure standard' in the international standardization system of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The project team for standardization has advanced the standardization through technical studies, based upon each country's study results and analysis data. The conclusions reached by the project team was published as ISO International Standard 21238:2007 'The Scaling Factor method to determine the radioactivity of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste packages generated at nuclear power plants'. This paper gives an introduction to the international standardization process for the SF method and the contents of the recently published International Standard. (authors)

  12. Modeling a Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger with RELAP5-3D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2010-12-01

    The main purpose of this report is to design a printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHE) for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and carry out Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) simulation using RELAP5-3D. Helium was chosen as the coolant in the primary and secondary sides of the heat exchanger. The design of PCHE is critical for the LOCA simulations. For purposes of simplicity, a straight channel configuration was assumed. A parallel intermediate heat exchanger configuration was assumed for the RELAP5 model design. The RELAP5 modeling also required the semicircular channels in the heat exchanger to be mapped to rectangular channels. The initial RELAP5 run outputs steady state conditions which were then compared to the heat exchanger performance theory to ensure accurate design is being simulated. An exponential loss of pressure transient was simulated. This LOCA describes a loss of coolant pressure in the primary side over a 20 second time period. The results for the simulation indicate that heat is initially transferred from the primary loop to the secondary loop, but after the loss of pressure occurs, heat transfers from the secondary loop to the primary loop.

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama Nuclear Profile 2010 Alabama profile Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arkansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Arkansas profile Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State ttal (percent) Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    California Nuclear Profile 2010 California profile California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Connecticut Nuclear Profile 2010 Connecticut profile Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida Nuclear Profile 2010 Florida profile Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary Energy Source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Georgia Nuclear Profile 2010 Georgia profile Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.6 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 54.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.7 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 15.9 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable1 637 1.7 3,181 2.2 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois Nuclear Profile 2010 Illinois profile Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana Nuclear Profile 2010 Louisiana profile Louisiana total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (nw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand nwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,142 8.0 18,639 18.1 Coal 3,417 12.8 23,924 23.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 192 0.7 1,109 1.1 Natural Gas 19,574 73.2 51,344 49.9 Other 1 213 0.8 2,120 2.1 Other Renewable1 325 1.2 2,468 2.4 Petroleum 881 3.3

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Maryland Nuclear Profile 2010 Maryland profile Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (Percent) Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Massachusetts Nuclear Profile 2010 Massachusetts profile Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Michigan Nuclear Profile 2010 Michigan profile Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota Nuclear Profile 2010 Minnesota profile Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,549 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Hampshire Nuclear Profile 2010 New Hampshire profile New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Jersey Nuclear Profile 2010 New Jersey profile New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    York Nuclear Profile 2010 New York profile New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    North Carolina Nuclear Profile 2010 North Carolina profile North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile 2010 Pennsylvania profile Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8

  10. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Alabama Nuclear Profile 2010 Alabama profile Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200

  11. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Arkansas Nuclear Profile 2010 Arkansas profile Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State ttal (percent) Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total

  12. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    California Nuclear Profile 2010 California profile California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Connecticut Nuclear Profile 2010 Connecticut profile Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Florida Nuclear Profile 2010 Florida profile Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary Energy Source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Georgia Nuclear Profile 2010 Georgia profile Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.6 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 54.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.7 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 15.9 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable1 637 1.7 3,181 2.2 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Illinois Nuclear Profile 2010 Illinois profile Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Louisiana Nuclear Profile 2010 Louisiana profile Louisiana total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (nw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand nwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,142 8.0 18,639 18.1 Coal 3,417 12.8 23,924 23.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 192 0.7 1,109 1.1 Natural Gas 19,574 73.2 51,344 49.9 Other 1 213 0.8 2,120 2.1 Other Renewable1 325 1.2 2,468 2.4 Petroleum 881 3.3

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Maryland Nuclear Profile 2010 Maryland profile Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (Percent) Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322

  19. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Massachusetts Nuclear Profile 2010 Massachusetts profile Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Michigan Nuclear Profile 2010 Michigan profile Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3

  1. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Minnesota Nuclear Profile 2010 Minnesota profile Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,549 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Hampshire Nuclear Profile 2010 New Hampshire profile New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0

  3. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Jersey Nuclear Profile 2010 New Jersey profile New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235

  4. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    York Nuclear Profile 2010 New York profile New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    North Carolina Nuclear Profile 2010 North Carolina profile North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile 2010 Pennsylvania profile Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8

  7. Monthly/Annual Energy Review - nuclear section

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2016-01-01

    Monthly and latest annual statistics on nuclear electricity capacity, generation, and number of operable nuclear reactors.

  8. Monthly/Annual Energy Review - nuclear section

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Monthly and latest annual statistics on nuclear electricity capacity, generation, and number of operable nuclear reactors.

  9. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs) Volume 2: Accident and Thermal Fluids Analysis PIRTs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ball, Sydney J; Corradini, M.; Fisher, Stephen Eugene; Gauntt, R.; Geffraye, G.; Gehin, Jess C; Hassan, Y.; Moses, David Lewis; Renier, John-Paul; Schultz, R.; Wei, T.

    2008-03-01

    An accident, thermal fluids, and reactor physics phenomena identification and ranking process was conducted by a panel of experts on the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) design (consideration given to both pebble-bed and prismatic gas-cooled reactor configurations). Safety-relevant phenomena, importance, and knowledge base were assessed for the following event classes: (1) normal operation (including some reactor physics aspects), (2) general loss of forced circulation (G-LOFC), (3) pressurized loss-of-forced circulation (P-LOFC), (4) depressurized loss-of-forced circulation (D-LOFC), (5) air ingress (following D-LOFC), (6) reactivity transients - including anticipated transients without scram (ATWS), (7) processes coupled via intermediate heat exchanger (IHX) (IHX failure with molten salt), and (8) steam/water ingress. The panel's judgment of the importance ranking of a given phenomenon (or process) was based on the effect it had on one or more figures of merit or evaluation criteria. These included public and worker dose, fuel failure, and primary (and other safety) system integrity. The major phenomena of concern that were identified and categorized as high importance combined with medium to low knowledge follow: (1) core coolant bypass flows (normal operation), (2) power/flux profiles (normal operation), (3) outlet plenum flows (normal operation), (4) reactivity-temperature feedback coefficients for high-plutonium-content cores (normal operation and accidents), (5) fission product release related to the transport of silver (normal operation), (6)emissivity aspects for the vessel and reactor cavity cooling system (G-LOFC), (7) reactor vessel cavity air circulation and heat transfer (G-LOFC), and (8)convection/radiation heating of upper vessel area (P-LOFC).

  10. Alabama Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Browns Ferry Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3","3,309","24,771",65.3,"Tennessee Valley Authority" "Joseph M Farley Unit 1, Unit 2","1,734","13,170",34.7,"Alabama Power

  11. Florida Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Florida nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Crystal River Unit 3",860,0,"--","Progress Energy Florida Inc" "St Lucie Unit 1, Unit 2","1,678","12,630",52.8,"Florida Power & Light Co" "Turkey Point

  12. Georgia Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Edwin I Hatch Unit 1, Unit 2","1,759","13,902",41.5,"Georgia Power Co" "Vogtle Unit 1, Unit 2","2,302","19,610",58.5,"Georgia Power Co" "2 Plants 4

  13. Iowa Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Iowa nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Duane Arnold Energy Center Unit 1",601,"4,451",100.0,"NextEra Energy Duane Arnold LLC" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",601,"4,451",100.0

  14. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant Name/Total Reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (Pprcent)","Owner" "River Bend Unit 1",974,"8,363",44.9,"Entergy Gulf States - LA LLC" "Waterford 3 Unit 3","1,168","10,276",55.1,"Entergy Louisiana Inc" "2 Plants 2

  15. Michigan Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Donald C Cook Unit 1, Unit 2","2,069","15,646",52.8,"Indiana Michigan Power Co" "Fermi Unit 2","1,085","7,738",26.1,"Detroit Edison Co" "Palisades Unit

  16. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Minnesota nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Monticello Unit 1",554,"4,695",34.8,"Northern States Power Co - Minnesota" "Prairie Island Unit 1, Unit 2","1,040","8,783",65.2,"Northern States Power Co -

  17. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Grand Gulf Unit 1","1,251","9,643",100.0,"System Energy Resources, Inc" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,251","9,643",100.0

  18. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Nebraska nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Cooper Unit 1",767,"6,793",61.4,"Nebraska Public Power District" "Fort Calhoun Unit 1",478,"4,261",38.6,"Omaha Public Power District" "2 Plants 2

  19. Virginia Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "North Anna Unit 1, Unit 2","1,863","13,399",50.4,"Virginia Electric & Power Co" "Surry Unit 1, Unit 2","1,638","13,172",49.6,"Virginia Electric & Power

  20. New York Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Indian Point Unit 2, Unit 3","2,063","16,321",39.0,"Entergy Nuclear Indian Point" "James A Fitzpatrick Unit 1",855,"6,361",15.2,"Entergy Nuc Fitzpatrick LLC" "Nine

  1. New Hampshire Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (nw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Seabrook Unit 1","1,247","10,910",100.0,"NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC" "1 Plant 1 Reactor","1,247","10,910",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due

  2. A preliminary user-friendly, digital console for the control room parameters supervision in old-generation Nuclear Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Memmi, F.; Falconi, L.; Cappelli, M.; Palomba, M.; Santoro, E.; Bove, R.; Sepielli, M.

    2012-07-01

    Improvements in the awareness of a system status is an essential requirement to achieve safety in every kind of plant. In particular, in the case of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs), a progress is crucial to enhance the Human Machine Interface (HMI) in order to optimize monitoring and analyzing processes of NPP operational states. Firstly, as old-fashioned plants are concerned, an upgrading of the whole console instrumentation is desirable in order to replace an analog visualization with a full-digital system. In this work, we present a novel instrument able to interface the control console of a nuclear reactor, developed by using CompactRio, a National Instruments embedded architecture and its dedicated programming language. This real-time industrial controller composed by a real-time processor and FPGA modules has been programmed to visualize the parameters coming from the reactor, and to storage and reproduce significant conditions anytime. This choice has been made on the basis of the FPGA properties: high reliability, determinism, true parallelism and re-configurability, achieved by a simple programming method, based on LabVIEW real-time environment. The system architecture exploits the FPGA capabilities of implementing custom timing and triggering, hardware-based analysis and co-processing, and highest performance control algorithms. Data stored during the supervisory phase can be reproduced by loading data from a measurement file, re-enacting worthwhile operations or conditions. The system has been thought to be used in three different modes, namely Log File Mode, Supervisory Mode and Simulation Mode. The proposed system can be considered as a first step to develop a more complete Decision Support System (DSS): indeed this work is part of a wider project that includes the elaboration of intelligent agents and meta-theory approaches. A synoptic has been created to monitor every kind of action on the plant through an intuitive sight. Furthermore, another important aim of this work is the possibility to have a front panel available on a web interface: CompactRio acts as a remote server and it is accessible on a dedicated LAN. This supervisory system has been tested and validated on the basis of the real control console for the 1-MW TRIGA reactor RC-1 at the ENEA, Casaccia Research Center. In this paper we show some results obtained by recording each variable as the reactor reaches its maximum level of power. The choice of a research reactor for testing the developed system relies on its training and didactic importance for the education of plant operators: in this context a digital instrument can offer a better user-friendly tool for learning and training. It is worthwhile to remark that such a system does not interfere with the console instrumentation, the latter continuing to preserve the total control. (authors)

  3. Alabama Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","5,043",15.6,"37,941",24.9 "Coal","11,441",35.3,"63,050",41.4 "Hydro and Pumped

  4. Arizona Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",3937,14.9,"31,200",27.9 "Coal","6,233",23.6,"43,644",39.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","2,937",11.1,"6,831",6.1

  5. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,835",11.5,"15,023",24.6 "Coal","4,535",28.4,"28,152",46.2 "Hydro and Pumped

  6. California Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,390",6.5,"32,201",15.8 "Coal",374,0.6,"2,100",1.0 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","13,954",20.7,"33,260",16.3

  7. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,103",25.4,"16,750",50.2 "Coal",564,6.8,"2,604",7.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",151,1.8,400,1.2 "Natural

  8. Florida Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,924",6.6,"23,936",10.4 "Coal","9,975",16.9,"59,897",26.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",55,0.1,177,0.1 "Natural

  9. Georgia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,061",11.1,"33,512",24.4 "Coal","13,230",36.1,"73,298",53.3 "Hydro and Pumped

  10. Illinois Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","11,441",25.9,"96,190",47.8 "Coal","15,551",35.2,"93,611",46.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",34,0.1,119,0.1 "Natural

  11. Iowa Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",601,4.1,"4,451",7.7 "Coal","6,956",47.7,"41,283",71.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",144,1.0,948,1.6 "Natural

  12. Kansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,160",9.2,"9,556",19.9 "Coal","5,179",41.3,"32,505",67.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",3,"*",13,"*"

  13. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,142",8.0,"18,639",18.1 "Coal","3,417",12.8,"23,924",23.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",192,0.7,"1,109",1.1

  14. Maryland Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,705",13.6,"13,994",32.1 "Coal","4,886",39.0,"23,668",54.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",590,4.7,"1,667",3.8

  15. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, smmer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",685,5.0,"5,918",13.8 "Coal","1,669",12.2,"8,306",19.4 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","1,942",14.2,659,1.5 "Natural

  16. Michigan Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy Source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,947",13.2,"29,625",26.6 "Coal","11,531",38.7,"65,604",58.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","2,109",7.1,228,0.2

  17. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,594",10.8,"13,478",25.1 "Coal","4,789",32.5,"28,083",52.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",193,1.3,840,1.6 "Natural

  18. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,251",8.0,"9,643",17.7 "Coal","2,526",16.1,"13,629",25.0 "Natural Gas","11,640",74.2,"29,619",54.4

  19. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,245",15.8,"11,054",30.2 "Coal","3,932",50.0,"23,363",63.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",278,3.5,"1,314",3.6

  20. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,401",15.9,"27,739",33.7 "Coal","8,805",41.1,"43,670",53.0 "Hydro and Pumped

  1. Texas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,966",4.6,"41,335",10.0 "Coal","22,335",20.6,"150,173",36.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",689,0.6,"1,262",0.3

  2. Ohio Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,134",6.5,"15,805",11.0 "Coal","21,360",64.6,"117,828",82.1 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",101,0.3,429,0.3 "Natural

  3. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","9,540",20.9,"77,828",33.9 "Coal","18,481",40.6,"110,369",48.0 "Hydro and Pumped

  4. Vermont Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",620,55.0,"4,782",72.2 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",324,28.7,"1,347",20.3 "Natural Gas","-","-",4,0.1 "Other

  5. Virginia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,501",14.5,"26,572",36.4 "Coal","5,868",24.3,"25,459",34.9 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","4,107",17.0,10,"*"

  6. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (nw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,584",8.9,"13,281",20.7 "Coal","8,063",45.2,"40,169",62.5 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",492,2.8,"2,112",3.3

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Carolina profile South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Tennessee profile Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0

  9. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas profile Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0

  10. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Virginia profile Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966

  11. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Washington profile Washington total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,097 3.6 9,241 8.9 Coal 1,340 4.4 8,527 8.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 21,495 70.5 68,342 66.0 Natural Gas 3,828 12.6 10,359 10.0 Other 1 - - 354 0.3 Other Renewable1 2,703 8.9 6,617 6.4 Petroleum 15 * 32 * Total 30,478 100.0 103,473

  12. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Wisconsin profile Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314

  13. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    South Carolina profile South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982

  14. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Tennessee profile Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0

  15. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Texas profile Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0

  16. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Virginia profile Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Washington profile Washington total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,097 3.6 9,241 8.9 Coal 1,340 4.4 8,527 8.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 21,495 70.5 68,342 66.0 Natural Gas 3,828 12.6 10,359 10.0 Other 1 - - 354 0.3 Other Renewable1 2,703 8.9 6,617 6.4 Petroleum 15 * 32 * Total 30,478 100.0 103,473

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Wisconsin profile Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314

  19. Dynamic Analysis of Nuclear Energy System Strategies

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-06-17

    DANESS is an integrated process model for nuclear energy systems allowing the simulation of multiple reactors and fuel cycles in a continuously changing nuclear reactor park configuration. The model is energy demand driven and simulates all nuclear fuel cycle facilites, up to 10 reactors and fuels. Reactor and fuel cycle facility history are traced and the cost of generating energy is calculated per reactor and for total nuclear energy system. The DANESS model aims atmore » performing dynamic systems analysis of nuclear energy development used for integrated analysis of development paths for nuclear energy, parameter scoping for new nuclear energy systems, economic analysis of nuclear energy, government role analysis, and education.« less

  20. Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle (T-D Cycle{trademark}) application for nuclear and fossil-fueled power generating plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsiklauri, B.; Korolev, V.N.; Durst, B.M.; Shen, P.K.

    1998-07-01

    The Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle is a combination of the best attributes of both nuclear power and combined cycle gas power plants. A technology patented in 1994 by Battelle Memorial Institute offers a synergistic approach to power generation. A typical combined cycle is defined as the combination of gas turbine Brayton Cycle, topping steam turbine Rankine Cycle. Exhaust from the gas turbine is used in heat recovery steam generators to produce steam for a steam turbine. In a standard combined cycle gas turbine-steam turbine application, the gas turbine generates about 65 to 70 percent of system power. The thermal efficiency for such an installation is typically about 45 to 50 percent. A T-D combined cycle takes a new, creative approach to combined cycle design by directly mixing high enthalpy steam from the heat recovery steam generator, involving the steam generator at more than one pressure. Direct mixing of superheated and saturated steam eliminates the requirement for a large heat exchanger, making plant modification simple and economical.

  1. An interactive ontology-driven information system for simulating background radiation and generating scenarios for testing special nuclear materials detection algorithms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sorokine, Alexandre; Schlicher, Bob G; Ward, Richard C; Wright, Michael C; Kruse, Kara L

    2015-01-01

    This paper describes an original approach to generating scenarios for the purpose of testing the algorithms used to detect special nuclear materials (SNM) that incorporates the use of ontologies. Separating the signal of SNM from the background requires sophisticated algorithms. To assist in developing such algorithms, there is a need for scenarios that capture a very wide range of variables affecting the detection process, depending on the type of detector being used. To provide such a cpability, we developed an ontology-driven information system (ODIS) for generating scenarios that can be used in creating scenarios for testing of algorithms for SNM detection. The ontology-driven scenario generator (ODSG) is an ODIS based on information supplied by subject matter experts and other documentation. The details of the creation of the ontology, the development of the ontology-driven information system, and the design of the web user interface (UI) are presented along with specific examples of scenarios generated using the ODSG. We demonstrate that the paradigm behind the ODSG is capable of addressing the problem of semantic complexity at both the user and developer levels. Compared to traditional approaches, an ODIS provides benefits such as faithful representation of the users' domain conceptualization, simplified management of very large and semantically diverse datasets, and the ability to handle frequent changes to the application and the UI. The approach makes possible the generation of a much larger number of specific scenarios based on limited user-supplied information

  2. Proceedings of the 2. MIT international conference on the next generation of nuclear power technology. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1993-12-31

    The goal of the conference was to try to attract a variety of points of view from well-informed people to debate issues concerning nuclear power. Hopefully from that process a better understanding of what one should be doing will emerge. In organizing the conference lessons learned from the previous one were applied. A continuous effort was made to see to it that the arguments for the alternatives to nuclear power were given abundant time for presentation. This is ultimately because nuclear power is going to have to compete with all of the energy technologies. Thus, in discussing energy strategy all of the alternatives must be considered in a reasonable fashion. The structure the conference used has seven sessions. The first six led up to the final session which was concerned with what the future nuclear power strategy should be. Each session focused upon a question concerning the future. None of these questions has a unique correct answer. Rather, topics are addressed where reasonable people can disagree. In order to state some of the important arguments for each session`s question, the combination of a keynote paper followed by a respondent was used. The respondent`s paper is not necessarily included to be a rebuttal to the keynote; but rather, it was recognized that two people will look at a complex question with different shadings. Through those two papers the intention was to get out the most important arguments affecting the question for the session. The purpose of the papers was to set the stage for about an hour of discussion. The real product of this conference was that discussion.

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5 Iowa Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable 1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100.0 Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 Nebraska Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,363 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,849 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable 1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630 100.0 Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1

  5. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    60 Vermont Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable 1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 - = No data reported. Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1 Municipal Solid Waste net

  6. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5 Iowa Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable 1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100.0 Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1

  7. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Nebraska Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,363 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,849 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable 1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630 100.0 Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1

  8. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    60 Vermont Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable 1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 - = No data reported. Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report." Share of State total (percent) 1 Municipal Solid Waste net

  9. Radioisotope Power System Delivery, Ground Support and Nuclear Safety Implementation: Use of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator for the NASA's Mars Science Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.G. Johnson; K.L. Lively; C.C. Dwight

    2014-07-01

    Radioisotope power systems have been used for over 50 years to enable missions in remote or hostile environments. They are a convenient means of supplying a few milliwatts up to a few hundred watts of useable, long-term electrical power. With regard to use of a radioisotope power system, the transportation, ground support and implementation of nuclear safety protocols in the field is a complex process that requires clear identification of needed technical and regulatory requirements. The appropriate care must be taken to provide high quality treatment of the item to be moved so it arrives in a condition to fulfill its missions in space. Similarly it must be transported and managed in a manner compliant with requirements for shipment and handling of special nuclear material. This presentation describes transportation, ground support operations and implementation of nuclear safety and security protocols for a radioisotope power system using recent experience involving the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator for National Aeronautics and Space Administrations Mars Science Laboratory, which launched in November of 2011.

  10. Verification of voltage/frequency requirement for emergency diesel generator in nuclear power plant using dynamic modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hur, Jin-Suk; Roh, Myung- Sub

    2014-02-12

    One major cause of the plant shutdown is the loss of electrical power. The study is to comprehend the coping action against station blackout including emergency diesel generator, sequential loading of safety system and to ensure that the emergency diesel generator should meet requirements, especially voltage and frequency criteria using modeling tool. This paper also considered the change of the sequencing time and load capacity only for finding electrical design margin. However, the revision of load list must be verified with safety analysis. From this study, it is discovered that new load calculation is a key factor in EDG localization and in-house capability increase.

  11. Nuclear | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Nuclear Nuclear Radioisotope Power Systems, a strong partnership between the Energy Department's Office of Nuclear Energy and NASA, has been providing the energy for deep space exploration. Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity. Nuclear power plants provide about 6 percent of the world's energy and 13-14 percent of the world's electricity. Featured Moving Forward to Address Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Three trucks transport nuclear waste

  12. HIGH EFFICIENCY GENERATION OF HYDROGEN FUELS USING NUCLEAR POWER FINAL RECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 1999 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 REV. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BROWN,LC; BESENBRUCH,GE; LENTSCH, RD; SCHULTZ,KR; FUNK,JF; PICKARD,PS; MARSHALL,AC; SHOWALTER,SK

    2003-12-01

    OAK-B135 Combustion of fossil fuels, used to power transportation, generate electricity, heat homes and fuel industry provides 86% of the world's energy [1-1,1-2]. Drawbacks to fossil fuel utilization include limited supply, pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions, thought to be responsible for global warming, are now the subject of international treaties [1-3,1-4]. Together, these drawbacks argue for the replacement of fossil fuels with a less-polluting potentially renewable primary energy such as nuclear energy. Conventional nuclear plants readily generate electric power but fossil fuels are firmly entrenched in the transportation sector. Hydrogen is an environmentally attractive transportation fuel that has the potential to displace fossil fuels. Hydrogen will be particularly advantageous when coupled with fuel cells. Fuel cells have higher efficiency than conventional battery/internal combustion engine combinations and do not produce nitrogen oxides during low-temperature operation. Contemporary hydrogen production is primarily based on fossil fuels and most specifically on natural gas. When hydrogen is produced using energy derived from fossil fuels, there is little or no environmental advantage. There is currently no large scale, cost-effective, environmentally attractive hydrogen production process available for commercialization, nor has such a process been identified. The objective of this work is to find an economically feasible process for the production of hydrogen, by nuclear means, using an advanced high-temperature nuclear reactor as the primary energy source. Hydrogen production by thermochemical water-splitting (Appendix A), a chemical process that accomplishes the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen using only heat or, in the case of a hybrid thermochemical process, by a combination of heat and electrolysis, could meet these goals. Hydrogen produced from fossil fuels has trace contaminants (primarily carbon monoxide) that are detrimental to precious metal catalyzed fuel cells, as is now recognized by many of the world's largest automobile companies. Thermochemical hydrogen will not contain carbon monoxide as an impurity at any level. Electrolysis, the alternative process for producing hydrogen using nuclear energy, suffers from thermodynamic inefficiencies in both the production of electricity and in electrolytic parts of the process. The efficiency of electrolysis (electricity to hydrogen) is currently about 80%. Electric power generation efficiency would have to exceed 65% (thermal to electrical) for the combined efficiency to exceed the 52% (thermal to hydrogen) calculated for one thermochemical cycle. Thermochemical water-splitting cycles have been studied, at various levels of effort, for the past 35 years. They were extensively studied in the late 70s and early 80s but have received little attention in the past 10 years, particularly in the U.S. While there is no question about the technical feasibility and the potential for high efficiency, cycles with proven low cost and high efficiency have yet to be developed commercially. Over 100 cycles have been proposed, but substantial research has been executed on only a few. This report describes work accomplished during a three-year project whose objective is to ''define an economically feasible concept for production of hydrogen, by nuclear means, using an advanced high temperature nuclear reactor as the energy source.''

  13. Investigation of a Novel NDE Method for Monitoring Thermomechanical Damage and Microstructure Evolution in Ferritic-Martensitic Steels for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nagy, Peter

    2013-09-30

    The main goal of the proposed project is the development of validated nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques for in situ monitoring of ferritic-martensitic steels like Grade 91 9Cr-1Mo, which are candidate materials for Generation IV nuclear energy structural components operating at temperatures up to ~650{degree}C and for steam-generator tubing for sodium-cooled fast reactors. Full assessment of thermomechanical damage requires a clear separation between thermally activated microstructural evolution and creep damage caused by simultaneous mechanical stress. Creep damage can be classified as "negligible" creep without significant plastic strain and "ordinary" creep of the primary, secondary, and tertiary kind that is accompanied by significant plastic deformation and/or cavity nucleation and growth. Under negligible creep conditions of interest in this project, minimal or no plastic strain occurs, and the accumulation of creep damage does not significantly reduce the fatigue life of a structural component so that low-temperature design rules, such as the ASME Section III, Subsection NB, can be applied with confidence. The proposed research project will utilize a multifaceted approach in which the feasibility of electrical conductivity and thermo-electric monitoring methods is researched and coupled with detailed post-thermal/creep exposure characterization of microstructural changes and damage processes using state-of-the-art electron microscopy techniques, with the aim of establishing the most effective nondestructive materials evaluation technique for particular degradation modes in high-temperature alloys that are candidates for use in the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) as well as providing the necessary mechanism-based underpinnings for relating the two. Only techniques suitable for practical application in situ will be considered. As the project evolves and results accumulate, we will also study the use of this technique for monitoring other GEN IV materials. Through the results obtained from this integrated materials behavior and NDE study, new insight will be gained into the best nondestructive creep and microstructure monitoring methods for the particular mechanisms identified in these materials. The proposed project includes collaboration with a national laboratory partner and the results will also serve as a foundation to guide the efforts of scientists in the DOE laboratory, university, and industrial communities concerned with the technological challenges of monitoring creep and microstructural evolution in materials planned to be used in Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.

  14. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Carolina nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Brunswick Unit 1, Unit 2","1,858","14,808",36.3,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc" "Harris Unit 1",900,"7,081",17.4,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc" "McGuire

  15. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Carolina nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Catawba Unit 1, Unit 2","2,258","18,964",36.5,"Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC" "H B Robinson Unit 2",724,"3,594",6.9,"Progress Energy Carolinas Inc"

  16. Quadrennial Technology Review's Alternative Generation Workshop...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Technology Review's Alternative Generation Workshop Slides Preliminary Slides for Alternative Generation Workshop including Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Nuclear Power,...

  17. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Technology Development Roadmaps: The Technical Path Forward for 750800C Reactor Outlet Temperature

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John Collins

    2009-08-01

    This document presents the NGNP Critical PASSCs and defines their technical maturation path through Technology Development Roadmaps (TDRMs) and their associated Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). As the critical PASSCs advance through increasing levels of technical maturity, project risk is reduced and the likelihood of within-budget and on-schedule completion is enhanced. The current supplier-generated TRLs and TDRMs for a 750800C reactor outlet temperature (ROT) specific to each supplier are collected in Appendix A.

  18. Obama Administration Announces Loan Guarantees to Construct New Nuclear

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Power Reactors in Georgia THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Public Affairs Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant WASHINGTON, DC � U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced selections for the award of approximately $40 million in total to two teams led by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and San Diego-based General Atomics for conceptual design and planning work for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The results

  19. New Hampshire Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,247",29.8,"10,910",49.2 "Coal",546,13.1,"3,083",13.9 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",489,11.7,"1,478",6.7 "Natural

  20. New Jersey Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,108",22.3,"32,771",49.9 "Coal","2,036",11.1,"6,418",9.8 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",404,2.2,-176,-0.3 "Natural

  1. New York Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","5,271",13.4,"41,870",30.6 "Coal","2,781",7.1,"13,583",9.9 "Hydro and Pumped

  2. North Carolina Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,958",17.9,"40,740",31.7 "Coal","12,766",46.1,"71,951",55.9 "Hydro and Pumped

  3. South Carolina Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","6,486",27.0,"51,988",49.9 "Coal","7,230",30.1,"37,671",36.2 "Hydro and Pumped

  4. Levelized Power Generation Cost Codes

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1996-04-30

    LPGC is a set of nine microcomputer programs for estimating power generation costs for large steam-electric power plants. These programs permit rapid evaluation using various sets of economic and technical ground rules. The levelized power generation costs calculated may be used to compare the relative economics of nuclear and coal-fired plants based on life-cycle costs. Cost calculations include capital investment cost, operation and maintenance cost, fuel cycle cost, decommissioning cost, and total levelized power generationmore » cost. These programs can be used for quick analyses of power generation costs using alternative economic parameters, such as interest rate, escalation rate, inflation rate, plant lead times, capacity factor, fuel prices, etc. The two major types of electric generating plants considered are pressurized water reactor (PWR) and pulverized coal-fired plants. Data are also provided for the Large Scale Prototype Breeder (LSPB) type liquid metal reactor.« less

  5. REGULATORY STRATEGIES TO MINIMIZE GENERATION OF REGULATED WASTES FROM CLEANUP, CONTINUED USE OR DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES CONTAMINATED WITH POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) - 11198

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lowry, N.

    2010-11-05

    Disposal costs for liquid PCB radioactive waste are among the highest of any category of regulated waste. The high cost is driven by the fact that disposal options are extremely limited. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations require most liquids with PCBs at concentration of {ge} 50 parts-per-million to be disposed by incineration or equivalent destructive treatment. Disposal fees can be as high as $200 per gallon. This figure does not include packaging and the cost to transport the waste to the disposal facility, or the waste generator's labor costs for managing the waste prior to shipment. Minimizing the generation of liquid radioactive PCB waste is therefore a significant waste management challenge. PCB spill cleanups often generate large volumes of waste. That is because the removal of PCBs typically requires the liberal use of industrial solvents followed by a thorough rinsing process. In a nuclear facility, the cleanup process may be complicated by the presence of radiation and other occupational hazards. Building design and construction features, e.g., the presence of open grating or trenches, may also complicate cleanup. In addition to the technical challenges associated with spill cleanup, selection of the appropriate regulatory requirements and approach may be challenging. The TSCA regulations include three different sections relating to the cleanup of PCB contamination or spills. EPA has also promulgated a separate guidance policy for fresh PCB spills that is published as Subpart G of 40 CFR 761 although it is not an actual regulation. Applicability is based on the circumstances of each contamination event or situation. Other laws or regulations may also apply. Identification of the allowable regulatory options is important. Effective communication with stakeholders, particularly regulators, is just as important. Depending on the regulatory path that is taken, cleanup may necessitate the generation of large quantities of regulated waste. Allowable options must be evaluated carefully in order to reduce compliance risks, protect personnel, limit potential negative impacts on facility operations, and minimize the generation of wastes subject to TSCA. This paper will identify critical factors in selecting the appropriate TSCA regulatory path in order to minimize the generation of radioactive PCB waste and reduce negative impacts to facilities. The importance of communicating pertinent technical issues with facility staff, regulatory personnel, and subsequently, the public, will be discussed. Key points will be illustrated by examples from five former production reactors at the DOE Savannah River Site. In these reactors a polyurethane sealant was used to seal piping penetrations in the biological shield walls. During the intense neutron bombardment that occurred during reactor operation, the sealant broke down into a thick, viscous material that seeped out of the piping penetrations over adjacent equipment and walls. Some of the walls were painted with a PCB product. PCBs from the paint migrated into the degraded sealant, creating PCB 'spill areas' in some of these facilities. The regulatory cleanup approach selected for each facility was based on its operational status, e.g., active, inactive or undergoing decommissioning. The selected strategies served to greatly minimize the generation of radioactive liquid PCB waste. It is expected that this information would be useful to other DOE sites, DOD facilities, and commercial nuclear facilities constructed prior to the 1979 TSCA ban on most manufacturing and uses of PCBs.

  6. Barge Truck Total

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over...

  7. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20 Kansas Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable 1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report."

  8. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    20 Kansas Kansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,160 9.2 9,556 19.9 Coal 5,179 41.3 32,505 67.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3 * 13 * Natural Gas 4,573 36.5 2,287 4.8 Other Renewable 1 1,079 8.6 3,459 7.2 Petroleum 550 4.4 103 0.2 Total 12,543 100.0 47,924 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report," and Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report."

  9. Waste Classification based on Waste Form Heat Generation in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles Using the Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT) Model

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denia Djokic; Steven J. Piet; Layne F. Pincock; Nick R. Soelberg

    2013-02-01

    This study explores the impact of wastes generated from potential future fuel cycles and the issues presented by classifying these under current classification criteria, and discusses the possibility of a comprehensive and consistent characteristics-based classification framework based on new waste streams created from advanced fuel cycles. A static mass flow model, Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT), was used to calculate the composition of waste streams resulting from different nuclear fuel cycle choices. This analysis focuses on the impact of waste form heat load on waste classification practices, although classifying by metrics of radiotoxicity, mass, and volume is also possible. The value of separation of heat-generating fission products and actinides in different fuel cycles is discussed. It was shown that the benefits of reducing the short-term fission-product heat load of waste destined for geologic disposal are neglected under the current source-based radioactive waste classification system , and that it is useful to classify waste streams based on how favorable the impact of interim storage is in increasing repository capacity.

  10. Waste Classification based on Waste Form Heat Generation in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles Using the Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT) Model - 13413

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Djokic, Denia [Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California - Berkeley, 4149 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1730 (United States)] [Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California - Berkeley, 4149 Etcheverry Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1730 (United States); Piet, Steven J.; Pincock, Layne F.; Soelberg, Nick R. [Idaho National Laboratory - INL, 2525 North Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States)] [Idaho National Laboratory - INL, 2525 North Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States)

    2013-07-01

    This study explores the impact of wastes generated from potential future fuel cycles and the issues presented by classifying these under current classification criteria, and discusses the possibility of a comprehensive and consistent characteristics-based classification framework based on new waste streams created from advanced fuel cycles. A static mass flow model, Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT), was used to calculate the composition of waste streams resulting from different nuclear fuel cycle choices. This analysis focuses on the impact of waste form heat load on waste classification practices, although classifying by metrics of radiotoxicity, mass, and volume is also possible. The value of separation of heat-generating fission products and actinides in different fuel cycles is discussed. It was shown that the benefits of reducing the short-term fission-product heat load of waste destined for geologic disposal are neglected under the current source-based radioactive waste classification system, and that it is useful to classify waste streams based on how favorable the impact of interim storage is in increasing repository capacity. (authors)

  11. Safer nuclear power

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Safer nuclear power 1663 Los Alamos science and technology magazine Latest Issue:October 2015 past issues All Issues » submit Safer nuclear power Experiments at Los Alamos reveal that alternative fuel rod cladding materials can make nuclear power plants dramatically less likely to suffer a Fukushima-type explosion in the event of a nuclear accident March 25, 2013 Safer nuclear power Nuclear generating station Los Alamos scientists, in collaboration with scientists from the Idaho and Oak Ridge

  12. Nuclear Energy Programs

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Energy Programs Solving Nuclear Energy Technical Challenges Our science and technology are making way for new nuclear fuels and reactor materials. Get Expertise David Teter Email Generating breakthroughs in nuclear energy materials Safe and sustainable nuclear energy is a focus of the Laboratory's energy security mission, and our expertise in materials science plays an important role. With collaborators worldwide, Los Alamos is developing technologies for future nuclear reactor designs

  13. Total Crude by Pipeline

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Product: Total Crude by All Transport Methods Domestic Crude by All Transport Methods Foreign Crude by All Transport Methods Total Crude by Pipeline Domestic Crude by Pipeline Foreign Crude by Pipeline Total Crude by Tanker Domestic Crude by Tanker Foreign Crude by Tanker Total Crude by Barge Domestic Crude by Barge Foreign Crude by Barge Total Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Domestic Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Foreign Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Total Crude by Trucks Domestic Crude by Trucks Foreign

  14. Missouri Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary energy source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,190",5.5,"8,996",9.7 "Coal","12,070",55.5,"75,047",81.3 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","1,221",5.6,"2,427",2.6

  15. Washington Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010" "Primary Energy Source","Summer capacity (mw)","Share of State total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,097",3.6,"9,241",8.9 "Coal","1,340",4.4,"8,527",8.2 "Hydro and Pumped Storage","21,495",70.5,"68,342",66.0

  16. ,"Total Natural Gas Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Consumption (billion cubic feet)",,,,,"Natural Gas Energy Intensity (cubic feetsquare foot)" ,"Total ","Space Heating","Water Heating","Cook- ing","Other","Total ","Space...

  17. 2013 Nuclear Workforce Development Day

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Myths Topics:  Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like a Bomb?  Will Nuclear Waste Be Around for Millions of Years?  Is Nuclear Energy Dangerous? Moderator: Suzy Hobbs Baker Founder, PopAtomic Studios & Director of Nuclear Literacy Project Panel Members: TJ Corder - Nuclear Engineer, Vogtle 3 & 4 Southern Company Jana Thames - Communications Specialist Southern Company Brian Dyke - Nuclear Auxiliary Operator Duke Energy Nathan Zohner North American Young Generation in Nuclear

  18. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Unit 1 1,240 10,620 67.2 FirstEnergy ... Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit Summer capacity (mw) Net generation (thousand mwh) Summer ...

  19. $787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded in FY2009 by DOE Programs in Oak Ridge | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS...

  20. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Alabama Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other 1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable 1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200 0.1 Total 32,417 100.0 152,151 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  1. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Arizona Arizona Total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable 1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total 26,392 100.0 111,751 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  2. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Arkansas Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable 1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total 15,981 100.0 61,000 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 California California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable 1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum 701 1.0 1,059 0.5 Total 67,328 100.0 204,126 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 Connecticut Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable 1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409 1.2 Total 8,284 100.0 33,350 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  5. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 Florida Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other 1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable 1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3 9,122 4.0 Total 59,147 100.0 229,096 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  6. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 Georgia Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.4 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 53.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.2 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 17.4 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable 1 637 1.7 3,181 2.3 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5 Total 36,636 100.0 137,577 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal

  7. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 Illinois Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable 1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110 0.1 Total 44,127 100.0 201,352 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  8. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    21 Louisiana Louisiana total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 2,142 8.0 18,639 18.1 Coal 3,417 12.8 23,924 23.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 192 0.7 1,109 1.1 Natural Gas 19,574 73.2 51,344 49.9 Other 1 213 0.8 2,120 2.1 Other Renewable 1 325 1.2 2,468 2.4 Petroleum 881 3.3 3,281 3.2 Total 26,744 100.0 102,885 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  9. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5 Maryland Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable 1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322 0.7 Total 12,516 100.0 43,607 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  10. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 Massachusetts Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable 1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031 22.1 296 0.7 Total 13,697 100.0 42,805 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste,

  11. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 Michigan Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable 1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3 Total 29,831 100.0 111,551 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  12. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 Minnesota Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,594 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable 1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31 0.1 Total 14,715 100.0 53,670 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  13. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 Mississippi Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable 1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 81 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts,

  14. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 Missouri Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable 1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total 21,739 100.0 92,313 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  15. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 New Hampshire New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable 1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0 72 0.3 Total 4,180 100.0 22,196 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge

  16. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    41 New Jersey New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by source, 2010 Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable 1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235 0.4 Total 18,424 100.0 65,682 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts,

  17. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 New York New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable 1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3 2,005 1.5 Total 39,357 100.0 136,962 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  18. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    34 North Carolina North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable 1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6 Petroleum 573 2.1 293 0.2 Total 27,674 100.0 128,678 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  19. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Ohio Ohio total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 2,134 6.5 15,805 11.0 Coal 21,360 64.6 117,828 82.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 101 0.3 429 0.3 Natural Gas 8,203 24.8 7,128 5.0 Other 1 123 0.4 266 0.2 Other Renewable 1 130 0.4 700 0.5 Petroleum 1,019 3.1 1,442 1.0 Total 33,071 100.0 143,598 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts,

  20. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    48 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable 1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8 Petroleum 4,534 9.9 571 0.2 Total 45,575 100.0 229,752 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  1. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 South Carolina South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable 1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982 100.0 104,153 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas,

  2. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 Tennessee Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable 1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Texas Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable 1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0 411,695 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Virginia Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable 1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal

  5. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    63 Wisconsin Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable 1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  6. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 5,043 15.6 37,941 24.9 Coal 11,441 35.3 63,050 41.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,272 10.1 8,704 5.7 Natural Gas 11,936 36.8 39,235 25.8 Other 1 100 0.3 643 0.4 Other Renewable 1 583 1.8 2,377 1.6 Petroleum 43 0.1 200 0.1 Total 32,417 100.0 152,151 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  7. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arizona Arizona Total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,937 14.9 31,200 27.9 Coal 6,233 23.6 43,644 39.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,937 11.1 6,831 6.1 Natural Gas 13,012 49.3 29,676 26.6 Other 1 - - 15 * Other Renewable 1 181 0.7 319 0.3 Petroleum 93 0.4 66 0.1 Total 26,392 100.0 111,751 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  8. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Arkansas Arkansas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,835 11.5 15,023 24.6 Coal 4,535 28.4 28,152 46.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,369 8.6 3,658 6.0 Natural Gas 7,894 49.4 12,469 20.4 Other 1 - - 28 * Other Renewable 1 326 2.0 1,624 2.7 Petroleum 22 0.1 45 0.1 Total 15,981 100.0 61,000 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  9. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 California California total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,390 6.5 32,201 15.8 Coal 374 0.6 2,100 1.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 13,954 20.7 33,260 16.3 Natural Gas 41,370 61.4 107,522 52.7 Other 1 220 0.3 2,534 1.2 Other Renewable 1 6,319 9.4 25,450 12.5 Petroleum 701 1.0 1,059 0.5 Total 67,328 100.0 204,126 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  10. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9 Connecticut Connecticut total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 2,103 25.4 16,750 50.2 Coal 564 6.8 2,604 7.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 151 1.8 400 1.2 Natural Gas 2,292 27.7 11,716 35.1 Other 1 27 0.3 730 2.2 Other Renewable 1 159 1.9 740 2.2 Petroleum 2,989 36.1 409 1.2 Total 8,284 100.0 33,350 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  11. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1 Florida Florida total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,924 6.6 23,936 10.4 Coal 9,975 16.9 59,897 26.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 55 0.1 177 0.1 Natural Gas 31,563 53.4 128,634 56.1 Other 1 544 0.9 2,842 1.2 Other Renewable 1 1,053 1.8 4,487 2.0 Petroleum 12,033 20.3 9,122 4.0 Total 59,147 100.0 229,096 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  12. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Georgia Georgia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,061 11.1 33,512 24.4 Coal 13,230 36.1 73,298 53.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 3,851 10.5 3,044 2.2 Natural Gas 12,668 34.6 23,884 17.4 Other 1 - - 18 * Other Renewable 1 637 1.7 3,181 2.3 Petroleum 2,189 6.0 641 0.5 Total 36,636 100.0 137,577 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal

  13. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Illinois Illinois total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 93,611 46.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 34 0.1 119 0.1 Natural Gas 13,771 31.2 5,724 2.8 Other 1 145 0.3 461 0.2 Other Renewable 1 2,078 4.7 5,138 2.6 Petroleum 1,106 2.5 110 0.1 Total 44,127 100.0 201,352 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  14. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    21 Louisiana Louisiana total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 2,142 8.0 18,639 18.1 Coal 3,417 12.8 23,924 23.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 192 0.7 1,109 1.1 Natural Gas 19,574 73.2 51,344 49.9 Other 1 213 0.8 2,120 2.1 Other Renewable 1 325 1.2 2,468 2.4 Petroleum 881 3.3 3,281 3.2 Total 26,744 100.0 102,885 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  15. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5 Maryland Maryland total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 23,668 54.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 590 4.7 1,667 3.8 Natural Gas 2,041 16.3 2,897 6.6 Other 1 152 1.2 485 1.1 Other Renewable 1 209 1.7 574 1.3 Petroleum 2,933 23.4 322 0.7 Total 12,516 100.0 43,607 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  16. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Massachusetts Massachusetts total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 685 5.0 5,918 13.8 Coal 1,669 12.2 8,306 19.4 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,942 14.2 659 1.5 Natural Gas 6,063 44.3 25,582 59.8 Other 1 3 * 771 1.8 Other Renewable 1 304 2.2 1,274 3.0 Petroleum 3,031 22.1 296 0.7 Total 13,697 100.0 42,805 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste,

  17. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Michigan Michigan total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 65,604 58.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,109 7.1 228 0.2 Natural Gas 11,033 37.0 12,249 11.0 Other 1 - - 631 0.6 Other Renewable 1 571 1.9 2,832 2.5 Petroleum 640 2.1 382 0.3 Total 29,831 100.0 111,551 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  18. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9 Minnesota Minnesota total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,594 10.8 13,478 25.1 Coal 4,789 32.5 28,083 52.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 193 1.3 840 1.6 Natural Gas 4,936 33.5 4,341 8.1 Other 1 13 0.1 258 0.5 Other Renewable 1 2,395 16.3 6,640 12.4 Petroleum 795 5.4 31 0.1 Total 14,715 100.0 53,670 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  19. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Mississippi Mississippi total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,251 8.0 9,643 17.7 Coal 2,526 16.1 13,629 25.0 Natural Gas 11,640 74.2 29,619 54.4 Other 1 4 * 10 * Other Renewable 1 235 1.5 1,504 2.8 Petroleum 35 0.2 81 0.1 Total 15,691 100.0 54,487 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts,

  20. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1 Missouri Missouri total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,190 5.5 8,996 9.7 Coal 12,070 55.5 75,047 81.3 Hydro and Pumped Storage 1,221 5.6 2,427 2.6 Natural Gas 5,579 25.7 4,690 5.1 Other 1 - - 39 * Other Renewable 1 466 2.1 988 1.1 Petroleum 1,212 5.6 126 0.1 Total 21,739 100.0 92,313 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  1. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9 New Hampshire New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 489 11.7 1,478 6.7 Natural Gas 1,215 29.1 5,365 24.2 Other 1 - - 57 0.3 Other Renewable 1 182 4.4 1,232 5.6 Petroleum 501 12.0 72 0.3 Total 4,180 100.0 22,196 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge

  2. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    41 New Jersey New Jersey total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by source, 2010 Nuclear 4,108 22.3 32,771 49.9 Coal 2,036 11.1 6,418 9.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 404 2.2 -176 -0.3 Natural Gas 10,244 55.6 24,902 37.9 Other 1 56 0.3 682 1.0 Other Renewable 1 226 1.2 850 1.3 Petroleum 1,351 7.3 235 0.4 Total 18,424 100.0 65,682 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts,

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 New York New York total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 13,583 9.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 5,714 14.5 24,942 18.2 Natural Gas 17,407 44.2 48,916 35.7 Other 1 45 0.1 832 0.6 Other Renewable 1 1,719 4.4 4,815 3.5 Petroleum 6,421 16.3 2,005 1.5 Total 39,357 100.0 136,962 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    34 North Carolina North Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,958 17.9 40,740 31.7 Coal 12,766 46.1 71,951 55.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,042 7.4 4,757 3.7 Natural Gas 6,742 24.4 8,447 6.6 Other 1 50 0.2 407 0.3 Other Renewable 1 543 2.0 2,083 1.6 Petroleum 573 2.1 293 0.2 Total 27,674 100.0 128,678 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  5. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    48 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 9,540 20.9 77,828 33.9 Coal 18,481 40.6 110,369 48.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 2,268 5.0 1,624 0.7 Natural Gas 9,415 20.7 33,718 14.7 Other 1 100 0.2 1,396 0.6 Other Renewable 1 1,237 2.7 4,245 1.8 Petroleum 4,534 9.9 571 0.2 Total 45,575 100.0 229,752 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste,

  6. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1 South Carolina South Carolina total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 6,486 27.0 51,988 49.9 Coal 7,230 30.1 37,671 36.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,006 16.7 1,442 1.4 Natural Gas 5,308 22.1 10,927 10.5 Other 1 - - 61 0.1 Other Renewable 1 284 1.2 1,873 1.8 Petroleum 670 2.8 191 0.2 Total 23,982 100.0 104,153 100.0 - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas,

  7. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4 Tennessee Tennessee total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,401 15.9 27,739 33.7 Coal 8,805 41.1 43,670 53.0 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,277 20.0 7,416 9.0 Natural Gas 4,655 21.7 2,302 2.8 Other 1 - - 16 * Other Renewable 1 222 1.0 988 1.2 Petroleum 58 0.3 217 0.3 Total 21,417 100.0 82,349 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid

  8. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    6 Texas Texas total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 4,966 4.6 41,335 10.0 Coal 22,335 20.6 150,173 36.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 689 0.6 1,262 0.3 Natural Gas 69,291 64.0 186,882 45.4 Other 1 477 0.4 3,630 0.9 Other Renewable 1 10,295 9.5 27,705 6.7 Petroleum 204 0.2 708 0.2 Total 108,258 100.0 411,695 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  9. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Virginia Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,501 14.5 26,572 36.4 Coal 5,868 24.3 25,459 34.9 Hydro and Pumped Storage 4,107 17.0 10 * Natural Gas 7,581 31.4 16,999 23.3 Other 1 - - 414 0.6 Other Renewable 1 621 2.6 2,220 3.0 Petroleum 2,432 10.1 1,293 1.8 Total 24,109 100.0 72,966 100.0 * = Absolute percentage less than 0.05. - = No data reported. Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal

  10. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    63 Wisconsin Wisconsin total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,584 8.9 13,281 20.7 Coal 8,063 45.2 40,169 62.5 Hydro and Pumped Storage 492 2.8 2,112 3.3 Natural Gas 6,110 34.3 5,497 8.5 Other 1 21 0.1 63 0.1 Other Renewable 1 775 4.3 2,474 3.8 Petroleum 790 4.4 718 1.1 Total 17,836 100.0 64,314 100.0 Other Renewable: Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture

  11. Quarterly Nuclear Deployment Scorecard - April 2014 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    April 2014 Quarterly Nuclear Deployment Scorecard - April 2014 News Updates On February 20, Secretary Moniz announced the issuance of loan guarantees totalling approximately $6.5 billion to Georgia Power Company and Oglethorpe Power Company for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The Department continues to work on the remaining conditional commitment for a $1.8 billion loan guarantee to Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, the third

  12. The Future of Energy from Nuclear Fission

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kim, Son H.; Taiwo, Temitope

    2013-04-13

    Nuclear energy is an important part of our current global energy system, and contributes to supplying the significant demand for electricity for many nations around the world. There are 433 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries with an installed capacity of 367 GWe as of October 2011 (IAEA PRIS, 2011). Nuclear electricity generation totaled 2630 TWh in 2010 representing 14% the worlds electricity generation. The top five countries of total installed nuclear capacity are the US, France, Japan, Russia and South Korea at 102, 63, 45, 24, and 21 GWe, respectively (WNA, 2012a). The nuclear capacity of these five countries represents more than half, 68%, of the total global nuclear capacity. The role of nuclear power in the global energy system today has been motivated by several factors including the growing demand for electric power, the regional availability of fossil resources and energy security concerns, and the relative competitiveness of nuclear power as a source of base-load electricity. There is additional motivation for the use of nuclear power because it does not produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or local air pollutants during its operation and contributes to low levels of emissions throughout the lifecycle of the nuclear energy system (Beerten, J. et. al., 2009). Energy from nuclear fission primarily in the form of electric power and potentially as a source of industrial heat could play a greater role for meeting the long-term growing demand for energy worldwide while addressing the concern for climate change from rising GHG emissions. However, the nature of nuclear fission as a tremendously compact and dense form of energy production with associated high concentrations of radioactive materials has particular and unique challenges as well as benefits. These challenges include not only the safety and cost of nuclear reactors, but proliferation concerns, safeguard and storage of nuclear materials associated with nuclear fuel cycles. In March of 2011, an unprecedented earthquake of 9 magnitude and ensuing tsunami off the east coast of Japan caused a severe nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan (Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2011). The severity of the nuclear accident in Japan has brought about a reinvestigation of nuclear energy policy and deployment activities for many nations around the world, most notably in Japan and Germany (BBC, 2011; Reuter, 2011). The response to the accident has been mixed and its full impact may not be realized for many years to come. The nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan has not directly affected the significant on-going nuclear deployment activities in many countries. China, Russia, India, and South Korea, as well as others, are continuing with their deployment plans. As of October 2011, China had the most reactors under construction at 27, while Russia, India, and South Korea had 11, 6, and 5 reactors under construction, respectively (IAEA PRIS, 2011). Ten other nations have one or two reactors currently under construction. Many more reactors are planned for future deployment in China, Russia, and India, as well as in the US. Based on the World Nuclear Associations data, the realization of Chinas deployment plan implies that China will surpass the US in total nuclear capacity some time in the future.

  13. Civilian Nuclear Programs

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    The Civilian Nuclear Programs Office is the focal point for nuclear energy research and development and next-generation repository science at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Civilian Nuclear Programs Los Alamos is committed to using its advanced nuclear expertise and unique facilities to meet the civilian nuclear national security demands of the future. CONTACT US Program Director Venkateswara Rao Dasari (Rao) (505) 667-5098 Email Los Alamos partners extensively with other laboratories,

  14. Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Nuclear Plant | Department of Energy 0 Million to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant March 8, 2010 - 12:00am Addthis WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced selections for the award of approximately $40 million in total to two teams led by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and San Diego-based General Atomics for conceptual design and planning work for the Next

  15. Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear Plant | Department of Energy $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Department of Energy Announces $40 Million to Develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant March 9, 2010 - 12:47pm Addthis WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced selections for the award of approximately $40 million in total to two teams led by Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and San Diego-based General Atomics for conceptual design and planning work for the

  16. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    93 504 619 838 259 22 YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE 16.8 874 535 594 308 24 EDUCATION J.D.Ph.DSc.D Degrees 91 Masters Degrees 737 Bachelors Degrees 792 715 National Nuclear...

  17. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    105 515 633 823 263 25 YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE 16.7 876 566 552 344 26 EDUCATION J.D.Ph.DSc.D Degrees 95 Masters Degrees 761 Bachelors Degrees 801 707 National Nuclear...

  18. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration...

  19. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    . Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per...

  20. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  1. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region, 1999" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per Square Foot"...

  2. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings...

  3. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings*...

  4. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    A. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per...

  5. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    A. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  6. QUARTERLY NUCLEAR POWER DEPLOYMENT SUMMARY APRIL 2014

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    4 Updates available at: www.energy.gov/ne NEXT UPDATE - July 2014 Page 1 News Updates  On February 20, Secretary Moniz announced the issuance of loan guarantees totalling approximately $6.5 billion to Georgia Power Company and Oglethorpe Power Company for the construction of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The Department continues to work on the remaining conditional commitment for a $1.8 billion loan guarantee to Municipal Electric Authority of

  7. Parallel Total Energy

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-10-21

    This is a total energy electronic structure code using Local Density Approximation (LDA) of the density funtional theory. It uses the plane wave as the wave function basis set. It can sue both the norm conserving pseudopotentials and the ultra soft pseudopotentials. It can relax the atomic positions according to the total energy. It is a parallel code using MP1.

  8. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1. Capacity and Generation, Table 3. Characteristics and Operational History Table 2. U.S. Nuclear Reactor Ownership Data PDF XLS Plant/Reactor Name Generator ID Utility Name - Operator Owner Name % Owned Arkansas Nuclear One 1 Entergy Arkansas Inc Entergy Arkansas Inc 100 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 Entergy Arkansas Inc Entergy Arkansas Inc 100 Beaver Valley 1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp 100 Beaver Valley 2 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

  9. Summary Max Total Units

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Summary Max Total Units *If All Splits, No Rack Units **If Only FW, AC Splits 1000 52 28 28 2000 87 59 35 3000 61 33 15 4000 61 33 15 Totals 261 153 93 ***Costs $1,957,500.00 $1,147,500.00 $697,500.00 Notes: added several refrigerants removed bins from analysis removed R-22 from list 1000lb, no Glycol, CO2 or ammonia Seawater R-404A only * includes seawater units ** no seawater units included *** Costs = (total units) X (estimate of $7500 per unit) 1000lb, air cooled split systems, fresh water

  10. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other...

  11. ARM - Measurement - Total carbon

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    carbon ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Total carbon The total concentration of carbon in all its organic and non-organic forms. Categories Aerosols, Atmospheric Carbon Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including

  12. Commercial nuclear power 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-09-28

    This report presents the status at the end of 1989 and the outlook for commercial nuclear capacity and generation for all countries in the world with free market economies (FME). The report provides documentation of the US nuclear capacity and generation projections through 2030. The long-term projections of US nuclear capacity and generation are provided to the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) for use in estimating nuclear waste fund revenues and to aid in planning the disposal of nuclear waste. These projections also support the Energy Information Administration's annual report, Domestic Uranium Mining and Milling Industry: Viability Assessment, and are provided to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The foreign nuclear capacity projections are used by the DOE uranium enrichment program in assessing potential markets for future enrichment contracts. The two major sections of this report discuss US and foreign commercial nuclear power. The US section (Chapters 2 and 3) deals with (1) the status of nuclear power as of the end of 1989; (2) projections of nuclear capacity and generation at 5-year intervals from 1990 through 2030; and (3) a discussion of institutional and technical issues that affect nuclear power. The nuclear capacity projections are discussed in terms of two projection periods: the intermediate term through 2010 and the long term through 2030. A No New Orders case is presented for each of the projection periods, as well as Lower Reference and Upper Reference cases. 5 figs., 30 tabs.

  13. MERCURY-NITRITE-RHODIUM-RUTHENIUM INTERACTIONS IN NOBLE METAL CATALYZED HYDROGEN GENERATION FROM FORMIC ACID DURING NUCLEAR WASTE PROCESSING AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE - 136C

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koopman, D.; Pickenheim, B.; Lambert, D.; Newell, J; Stone, M.

    2009-09-02

    Chemical pre-treatment of radioactive waste at the Savannah River Site is performed to prepare the waste for vitrification into a stable waste glass form. During pre-treatment, compounds in the waste become catalytically active. Mercury, rhodium, and palladium become active for nitrite destruction by formic acid, while rhodium and ruthenium become active for catalytic conversion of formic acid into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Nitrite ion is present during the maximum activity of rhodium, but is consumed prior to the activation of ruthenium. Catalytic hydrogen generation during pre-treatment can exceed radiolytic hydrogen generation by several orders of magnitude. Palladium and mercury impact the maximum catalytic hydrogen generation rates of rhodium and ruthenium by altering the kinetics of nitrite ion decomposition. New data are presented that illustrate the interactions of these various species.

  14. conventional diesel generator

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    conventional diesel generator - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs

  15. next-generation biofuels

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    next-generation biofuels - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced

  16. 21 briefing pages total

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    1 briefing pages total p. 1 Reservist Differential Briefing U.S. Office of Personnel Management December 11, 2009 p. 2 Agenda - Introduction of Speakers - Background - References/Tools - Overview of Reservist Differential Authority - Qualifying Active Duty Service and Military Orders - Understanding Military Leave and Earnings Statements p. 3 Background 5 U.S.C. 5538 (Section 751 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, March 11, 2009) (Public Law 111-8) Law requires OPM to consult with DOD Law

  17. Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY 1 PROJECT in 1 LOCATION 2,200 MW GENERATION CAPACITY 17,200,000 MWh PROJECTED ANNUAL GENERATION * 10,000,000 METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS PREVENTED ANNUALLY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 * Calculated using the project's and NREL Technology specific capacity factors. For cases in which NREL's capacity

  18. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 4 10 4 PAY PLAN SES 7 EX 2 EJ/EK 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 2 EN 00 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 10 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 25 12 48.0% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 52.0% SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 00 NQ NU 28.0% 8.0% 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 4.0% 40.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

  19. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    91 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 0 3 17 3 6 8 10 70 58 PAY PLAN SES 12 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 2 EN 03 1 EN 00 3 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 123 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 GS 15 1 Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear NonProliferation (NA-20) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 176 85 48.3% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.7% SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 03 EN 00 NN NQ NU GS 15

  20. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 4 6 0 0 6 15 29 18 PAY PLAN SES 2 EJ/EK 1 NN (Engineering) 7 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 67 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 DIVERSITY 80 39 48.8% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.3% Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security (NA-70) As of March 21, 2015 SES EJ/EK NN NQ NU 2.5% 1.3% 8.8% 83.8% 3.8% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 18.8% 36.3% 22.5% SUPERVISORS DISABILITY 7 SUPERVISORS RATIO VETERANS 29 RETIREMENT AGE 51.7 2 14 12 35

  1. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    92 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 0 3 16 4 7 9 10 72 59 PAY PLAN SES 12 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 EN 03 7 EN 00 4 NN (Engineering) 28 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 118 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 GS 15 1 ED 00 1 DIVERSITY 181 89 49.2% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 50.8% Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear NonProliferation (NA-20) As of September 5, 2015 SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 03 EN 00 NN NQ

  2. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    0 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 2 4 6 0 0 7 14 27 18 PAY PLAN SES 3 NN (Engineering) 6 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 66 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 DIVERSITY 78 38 48.7% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.3% Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security (NA-70) As of September 5, 2015 SES NN NQ NU 3.8% 7.7% 84.6% 3.8% 0.0% 2.6% 5.1% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 17.9% 34.6% 23.1% Prepared by NNSA Office of

  3. Nuclear methods in environmental and energy research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vogt, J R

    1980-01-01

    A total of 75 papers were presented on nuclear methods for analysis of environmental and biological samples. Sessions were devoted to software and mathematical methods; nuclear methods in atmospheric and water research; nuclear and atomic methodology; nuclear methods in biology and medicine; and nuclear methods in energy research.

  4. World nuclear outlook 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-12-01

    As part of the EIA program to provide energy information, this analysis report presents the current status and projections through 2010 of nuclear capacity, generation, and fuel cycle requirements for all countries in the world using nuclear power to generate electricity for commercial use. It also contains information and forecasts of developments in the uranium market. Long-term projections of US nuclear capacity, generation, and spent fuel discharges for three different scenarios through 2040 are developed for the Department of Energy`s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). In turn, the OCRWM provides partial funding for preparation of this report. The projections of uranium requirements are provided to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for preparation of the Nuclear Energy Agency/OECD report, Summary of Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Data in OECD Member Countries.

  5. World nuclear outlook 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-09-29

    As part of the EIA program to provide energy information, this analysis report presents the current status and projections through 2015 of nuclear capacity, generation, and fuel cycle requirements for all countries in the world using nuclear power to generate electricity for commercial use. It also contains information and forecasts of developments in the uranium market. Long-term projections of US nuclear capacity, generation, and spent fuel discharges for two different scenarios through 2040 are developed for the Department of Energy`s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). In turn, the OCRWM provides partial funding for preparation of this report. The projections of uranium requirements are provided to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for preparation of the Nuclear Energy Agency/OECD report, Summary of Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Data in OECD Member Countries.

  6. Total Sales of Kerosene

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    End Use: Total Residential Commercial Industrial Farm All Other Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: End Use Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 269,010 305,508 187,656 81,102 79,674 137,928 1984-2014 East Coast (PADD 1) 198,762 237,397 142,189 63,075 61,327 106,995 1984-2014 New England (PADD 1A) 56,661 53,363 38,448 15,983 15,991 27,500 1984-2014 Connecticut 8,800 7,437

  7. NRC Fact-Finding Task Force report on the ATWS event at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, on February 25, 1983

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1983-03-01

    An NRC Region I Task Force was established on March 1, 1983 to conduct fact finding and data collection with regard to the circumstances which led to an anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) event at the Public Service Electric and Gas Company's Salem Generating Station, Unit 1 on February 25, 1983. The charter of the Task Force was to determine the factual information pertinent to management and administrative controls which should have ensured proper operation of the reactor trip breakers in the solid state protection system. This report documents the findings of the Task Force along with its conclusions.

  8. Absolute nuclear material assay

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Prasad, Manoj K.; Snyderman, Neal J.; Rowland, Mark S.

    2010-07-13

    A method of absolute nuclear material assay of an unknown source comprising counting neutrons from the unknown source and providing an absolute nuclear material assay utilizing a model to optimally compare to the measured count distributions. In one embodiment, the step of providing an absolute nuclear material assay comprises utilizing a random sampling of analytically computed fission chain distributions to generate a continuous time-evolving sequence of event-counts by spreading the fission chain distribution in time.

  9. Absolute nuclear material assay

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Prasad, Manoj K.; Snyderman, Neal J.; Rowland, Mark S.

    2012-05-15

    A method of absolute nuclear material assay of an unknown source comprising counting neutrons from the unknown source and providing an absolute nuclear material assay utilizing a model to optimally compare to the measured count distributions. In one embodiment, the step of providing an absolute nuclear material assay comprises utilizing a random sampling of analytically computed fission chain distributions to generate a continuous time-evolving sequence of event-counts by spreading the fission chain distribution in time.

  10. Steam generator support system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Moldenhauer, James E. (Simi Valley, CA)

    1987-01-01

    A support system for connection to an outer surface of a J-shaped steam generator for use with a nuclear reactor or other liquid metal cooled power source. The J-shaped steam generator is mounted with the bent portion at the bottom. An arrangement of elongated rod members provides both horizontal and vertical support for the steam generator. The rod members are interconnected to the steam generator assembly and a support structure in a manner which provides for thermal distortion of the steam generator without the transfer of bending moments to the support structure and in a like manner substantially minimizes forces being transferred between the support structure and the steam generator as a result of seismic disturbances.

  11. Steam generator support system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Moldenhauer, J.E.

    1987-08-25

    A support system for connection to an outer surface of a J-shaped steam generator for use with a nuclear reactor or other liquid metal cooled power source is disclosed. The J-shaped steam generator is mounted with the bent portion at the bottom. An arrangement of elongated rod members provides both horizontal and vertical support for the steam generator. The rod members are interconnected to the steam generator assembly and a support structure in a manner which provides for thermal distortion of the steam generator without the transfer of bending moments to the support structure and in a like manner substantially minimizes forces being transferred between the support structure and the steam generator as a result of seismic disturbances. 4 figs.

  12. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Illinois" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Braidwood Generation Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2330 2,"Byron Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2300 3,"LaSalle Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2277 4,"Quad Cities Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon

  13. TotalView Training 2015

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    TotalView Training 2015 TotalView Training 2015 NERSC will host an in-depth training course on TotalView, a graphical parallel debugger developed by Rogue Wave Software, on...

  14. Nuclear Science

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Science Nuclear Science Experimental and theoretical nuclear research carried out at NERSC is driven by the quest for improving our understanding of the building blocks of...

  15. Determination of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Using Total Carbon Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ekechukwu, A.A.

    2002-05-10

    Several methods have been proposed to replace the Freon(TM)-extraction method to determine total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. For reasons of cost, sensitivity, precision, or simplicity, none of the replacement methods are feasible for analysis of radioactive samples at our facility. We have developed a method to measure total petroleum hydrocarbon content in aqueous sample matrixes using total organic carbon (total carbon) determination. The total carbon content (TC1) of the sample is measured using a total organic carbon analyzer. The sample is then contacted with a small volume of non-pokar solvent to extract the total petroleum hydrocarbons. The total carbon content of the resultant aqueous phase of the extracted sample (TC2) is measured. Total petroleum hydrocarbon content is calculated (TPH = TC1-TC2). The resultant data are consistent with results obtained using Freon(TM) extraction followed by infrared absorbance.

  16. PROGRESS TOWARDS NEXT GENERATION, WAVEFORM BASED THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS AND METRICS TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION MONITORING IN THE MIDDLE EAST

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Savage, B; Peter, D; Covellone, B; Rodgers, A; Tromp, J

    2009-07-02

    Efforts to update current wave speed models of the Middle East require a thoroughly tested database of sources and recordings. Recordings of seismic waves traversing the region from Tibet to the Red Sea will be the principal metric in guiding improvements to the current wave speed model. Precise characterizations of the earthquakes, specifically depths and faulting mechanisms, are essential to avoid mapping source errors into the refined wave speed model. Errors associated with the source are manifested in amplitude and phase changes. Source depths and paths near nodal planes are particularly error prone as small changes may severely affect the resulting wavefield. Once sources are quantified, regions requiring refinement will be highlighted using adjoint tomography methods based on spectral element simulations [Komatitsch and Tromp (1999)]. An initial database of 250 regional Middle Eastern events from 1990-2007, was inverted for depth and focal mechanism using teleseismic arrivals [Kikuchi and Kanamori (1982)] and regional surface and body waves [Zhao and Helmberger (1994)]. From this initial database, we reinterpreted a large, well recorded subset of 201 events through a direct comparison between data and synthetics based upon a centroid moment tensor inversion [Liu et al. (2004)]. Evaluation was done using both a 1D reference model [Dziewonski and Anderson (1981)] at periods greater than 80 seconds and a 3D model [Kustowski et al. (2008)] at periods of 25 seconds and longer. The final source reinterpretations will be within the 3D model, as this is the initial starting point for the adjoint tomography. Transitioning from a 1D to 3D wave speed model shows dramatic improvements when comparisons are done at shorter periods, (25 s). Synthetics from the 1D model were created through mode summations while those from the 3D simulations were created using the spectral element method. To further assess errors in source depth and focal mechanism, comparisons between the three methods were made. These comparisons help to identify problematic stations and sources which may bias the final solution. Estimates of standard errors were generated for each event's source depth and focal mechanism to identify poorly constrained events. A final, well characterized set of sources and stations will be then used to iteratively improve the wave speed model of the Middle East. After a few iterations during the adjoint inversion process, the sources will be reexamined and relocated to further reduce mapping of source errors into structural features. Finally, efforts continue in developing the infrastructure required to 'quickly' generate event kernels at the n-th iteration and invert for a new, (n+1)-th, wave speed model of the Middle East. While development of the infrastructure proceeds, initial tests using a limited number of events shows the 3D model, while showing vast improvement compared to the 1D model, still requires substantial modifications. Employing our new, full source set and iterating the adjoint inversions at successively shorter periods will lead to significant changes and refined wave speed structures of the Middle East.

  17. Nuclear Physics

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Science Programs Office of Science Nuclear Physics science-innovationassetsimagesicon-science.jpg Nuclear Physics Enabling remarkable discoveries and tools that ...

  18. U.S. Total Exports

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Buffalo, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt Freeport, TX Total to India Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Japan Cameron, LA Freeport, TX Kenai, AK Port Nikiski, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Mexico Douglas, AZ Nogales, AZ Sasabe, AZ Calexico, CA Ogilby Mesa, CA Otay Mesa, CA San

  19. U.S. Total Exports

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Buffalo, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt Freeport, TX Total to India Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Japan Cameron, LA Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Mexico Douglas, AZ Nogales, AZ Sasabe, AZ Calexico, CA Ogilby Mesa, CA Otay Mesa, CA Alamo, TX Clint, TX Del Rio, TX Eagle Pass,

  20. National Nuclear Security Administration United States Department of Energy

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    America Treaty Organization NCT Nuclear Counterterrorism NCTIR Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program NDAA National Defense Authorization Act NELA Nuclear Explosive Like-Assembly NEST Nuclear Emergency Support Team NGSI Next Generation Safeguards Initiative NIS Nonproliferation and International Security Program NMF National Mission Force NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NNSS Nevada Nuclear Security Site NPAC Nonproliferation Policy and Arms Control Program NPT

  1. Total Eolica | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Eolica Jump to: navigation, search Name: Total Eolica Place: Spain Product: Project developer References: Total Eolica1 This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding...

  2. Nuclear Forensics

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Forensics AMS is a Powerful Tool for Nuclear Forensics Nuclear forensics, which can be applied to both interdicted materials and debris from a nuclear explosion, is the application of laboratory analysis and interpretation to provide technical conclusions (provenance, design, etc.) about a nuclear device or interdicted nuclear material. Nuclear forensic analysts can build confidence in their conclusions by employing multiple signatures that collectively minimize the subset of possible

  3. Global warming and nuclear power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, L., LLNL

    1998-07-10

    Nuclear fission power reactors represent a potential solution to many aspects of global change possibly induced by inputting of either particulate or carbon or sulfur oxides into the Earth`s atmosphere. Of proven technological feasibility, they presently produce high-grade heat for large-scale electricity generation, space heating and industrial process-energizing around the world, without emitting greenhouse gases or atmospheric particulates; importantly, electricity production costs from the best nuclear plants presently are closely comparable with those of the best fossil-fired plants. However, a substantial number of issues currently stand between nuclear power and widespread substitution for large stationary fossil fuel-fired systems. These include perceptual ones regarding both long-term and acute operational safety, plant decommissioning, fuel reprocessing, radwaste disposal, fissile materials diversion to military purposes and - perhaps most seriously- readily quantifiable concerns regarding long-term fuel supply and total unit electrical energy cost. We sketch a road-map for proceeding from the present situation toward a nuclear power-intensive world, addressing along the way each of the concerns which presently impede widespread nuclear substitution for fossil fuels, particularly for coal in the most populous and rapidly developing portions of the world, e.g., China and India. This `design to societal specifications` approach to large-scale nuclear fission power systems may lead to energy sources meeting essentially all stationary demands for high-temperature heat. Such advanced options offer a human population of ten billion the electricity supply levels currently enjoyed by Americans for 10,000 years. Nuclear power systems tailored to local needs-and-interests and having a common advanced technology base could reduce present-day world-wide C0{sub 2} emissions by two-fold, if universally employed. By application to small mobile demands, a second two-fold reduction might be attained. Even the first such halving of carbon intensivity of stationary-source energy production world-wide might permit continued slow power-demand growth in the highly developed countries and rapid development of the other 80% of the world, both without active governmental suppression of fossil fuel usage - while also stabilizing carbon input-rates into the Earth`s atmosphere. The second two-fold reduction might obviate most global warming concerns.

  4. Scram signal generator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Johanson, Edward W. (New Lenox, IL); Simms, Richard (Westmont, IL)

    1981-01-01

    A scram signal generating circuit for nuclear reactor installations monitors a flow signal representing the flow rate of the liquid sodium coolant which is circulated through the reactor, and initiates reactor shutdown for a rapid variation in the flow signal, indicative of fuel motion. The scram signal generating circuit includes a long-term drift compensation circuit which processes the flow signal and generates an output signal representing the flow rate of the coolant. The output signal remains substantially unchanged for small variations in the flow signal, attributable to long term drift in the flow rate, but a rapid change in the flow signal, indicative of a fast flow variation, causes a corresponding change in the output signal. A comparator circuit compares the output signal with a reference signal, representing a given percentage of the steady state flow rate of the coolant, and generates a scram signal to initiate reactor shutdown when the output signal equals the reference signal.

  5. Total........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Census Region and Division Northeast............................................. 20.6 6.7 1,247 1,032 Q 811 788 147 New England.................................... 5.5 1.9 1,365 1,127 Q 814 748 107 Middle Atlantic.................................. 15.1 4.8 1,182 978 Q 810 800 159 Midwest................................................ 25.6 4.6 1,349 1,133 506 895 810 346 East North Central............................ 17.7 3.2 1,483 1,239 560 968 842 351

  6. Total...........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Q Table HC3.2 Living Space Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Million U.S. Housing Units Owner- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 Living Space

  7. Total...........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Q Million U.S. Housing Units Renter- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Million U.S. Housing

  8. Total............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

  9. Total.............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer....................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model.................................. 58.6 7.6 14.2 13.1 9.2 14.6 5.0 14.5 Laptop Model...................................... 16.9 2.0 3.8 3.3 2.1 5.7 1.3 3.5 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..............................

  10. Total..............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ,171 1,618 1,031 845 630 401 Census Region and Division Northeast................................................... 20.6 2,334 1,664 562 911 649 220 New England.......................................... 5.5 2,472 1,680 265 1,057 719 113 Middle Atlantic........................................ 15.1 2,284 1,658 670 864 627 254 Midwest...................................................... 25.6 2,421 1,927 1,360 981 781 551 East North Central.................................. 17.7 2,483 1,926 1,269

  11. Total..............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................ 17.8 5.3 4.7 2.8 1.9 3.1 3.6 7.5 Have Cooling Equipment............................. 93.3 21.5 24.1 17.8 11.2 18.8 13.0 31.1 Use Cooling Equipment.............................. 91.4 21.0 23.5 17.4 11.0 18.6 12.6 30.3 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............. 1.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 Q Q 0.5 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.......................................... 65.9 11.0 16.5 13.5 8.7 16.1 6.4 17.2 Without a Heat

  12. Total...............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 9.3 11.9 18.2 11.0 2.......................................................... 16.2 2.9 3.5 5.5 4.4 3 or More............................................. 9.0 1.5 2.1 2.9 2.5 Number of Laptop PCs

  13. Total...............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 18.2 10.0 2.9 5.3 2.......................................................... 16.2 5.5 3.0 0.7 1.8 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  14. Total...............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 8.3 14.2 11.4 7.2 9.2 5.3 14.2 2.......................................................... 16.2 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.9 6.2 0.8 2.6 3 or More............................................. 9.0 0.4 1.2

  15. Total...............................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 21.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 2.......................................................... 16.2 6.2 2.8 4.1 3.0 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  16. Total.................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    49.2 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................... 93.3 31.3 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Use Cooling Equipment................................ 91.4 30.4 14.6 15.4 11.1 6.9 5.2 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............... 1.9 1.0 0.5 Q Q Q Q Q Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................... 17.8 17.8 N N N N N N Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................. 65.9 3.9 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Without a Heat

  17. Total.................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment........ 1.2 N Q Q 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment........... 109.8 14.7 7.4 12.4 12.2 18.5 18.3 17.1 9.2 Use Main Space Heating Equipment............. 109.1 14.6 7.3 12.4 12.2 18.2 18.2 17.1 9.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It............... 0.8 Q Q Q Q 0.3 Q N Q Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas................................................... 58.2 9.2 4.9 7.8 7.1 8.8 8.4 7.8 4.2 Central

  18. Total..................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    78.1 64.1 4.2 1.8 2.3 5.7 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 11.3 9.3 0.6 Q 0.4 0.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 66.8 54.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 4.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 65.8 54.0 3.6 1.7 1.9 4.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 1.1 0.8 Q N Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 51.7 43.9 2.5 0.7 1.6 3.1 Without a Heat

  19. Total..................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    33.0 8.0 3.4 5.9 14.4 1.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 6.5 1.6 0.9 1.3 2.4 0.2 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 26.5 6.5 2.5 4.6 12.0 1.0 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 25.7 6.3 2.5 4.4 11.7 0.8 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 0.8 Q Q 0.2 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 14.1 3.6 1.5 2.1 6.4 0.6 Without a Heat

  20. Total..................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    . 111.1 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 3.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.4 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 10.8 5.6 10.3 10.4 15.8 16.0 15.6 8.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 10.6 5.5 10.3 10.3 15.3 15.7 15.3 8.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 Q Q Q Q 0.6 0.4 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central

  1. Total...................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    15.2 7.8 1.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 For Two Housing Units............................. 0.9 Q N Q 0.6 N Heat Pump.................................................. 9.2 7.4 0.3 Q 0.7 0.5 Portable Electric Heater............................... 1.6 0.8 Q Q Q 0.3 Other Equipment......................................... 1.9 0.7 Q Q 0.7 Q Fuel Oil........................................................... 7.7 5.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 Steam or Hot Water System........................ 4.7 2.9 Q 0.7 0.8 N For One Housing

  2. Total...................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................... 65.9 47.5 4.0 2.8 7.9 3.7 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 37.8 3.4 2.2 7.0 3.1 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 9.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 Window/Wall Units.......................................... 28.9 14.9 2.3 3.5 6.0 2.1 1 Unit........................................................... 14.5 6.6 1.0 1.6 4.2 1.2 2

  3. Total...................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 47.5 4.0 2.8 7.9 3.7 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 37.8 3.4 2.2 7.0 3.1 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 9.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 Window/Wall Units........................................ 28.9 14.9 2.3 3.5 6.0 2.1 1 Unit........................................................... 14.5 6.6 1.0 1.6 4.2 1.2 2

  4. Total.......................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.9 5.3 1.6 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 13.7 9.8 3.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 9.3 6.8 2.5 2.................................................................. 16.2 2.9 1.9 1.0 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 Number of Laptop PCs

  5. Total.......................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.9 8.4 3.4 2.................................................................. 16.2 3.5 2.2 1.3 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  6. Total.......................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.0 3.4 7.6 2.................................................................. 16.2 4.4 1.3 3.1 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  7. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 25.6 40.3 23.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 25.6 40.1 22.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N Q 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 18.4 13.6 14.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1

  8. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 15.1 5.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 15.1 5.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 9.1 2.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1 5.3 0.8 For One Housing

  9. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 25.6 17.7 7.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 25.6 17.7 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 18.4 13.1 5.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 16.2 11.6 4.7 For One Housing

  10. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 40.3 21.4 6.9 12.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 40.1 21.2 6.9 12.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 Q Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 13.6 5.6 2.3 5.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.0 4.4

  11. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 0.7 Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 23.4 7.5 16.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 22.9 7.4 15.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 0.6 Q 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 14.7 4.6 10.1 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.4 4.0 7.4 For One

  12. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.2 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 7.1 6.8 7.9 11.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 7.1 6.6 7.9 11.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N Q N 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 3.8 0.4 3.8 8.4 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 1.8 Q 3.1 6.0

  13. Total........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 0.7 Q 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 46.3 18.9 22.5 22.1 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 45.6 18.8 22.5 22.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 0.7 Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 27.0 11.9 14.9 4.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7

  14. Total...........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 0.3 Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

  15. Total...........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  16. Total...........................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  17. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5 Without a Heat

  18. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 4.0 2.7 1.2 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 7.9 5.4 2.5 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 6.0 4.8 1.2 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.6 0.5 Q Less Than Once a

  19. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 10.7 7.8 2.9 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 5.6 4.0 1.6 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 Less Than Once a

  20. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  1. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a Heat

  2. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 2.6 0.7 1.9 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 6.6 2.0 4.6 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 8.8 2.9 5.8 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.7 Q 0.6 Less Than Once a

  3. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  4. Total.............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5 Without a Heat

  5. Total..............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5

  6. Total..............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a

  7. Total..............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer .......................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer....................................... 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Number of Desktop PCs 1......................................................................... 50.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 5.4 2......................................................................... 16.2 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.2 3 or More............................................................ 9.0 0.3

  8. Total..............................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5

  9. Total.................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment............................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.......................................................... 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

  10. Total.................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................... 17.8 1.8 Q Q 4.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................................ 93.3 5.3 7.0 7.8 7.2 Use Cooling Equipment................................................. 91.4 5.3 7.0 7.7 6.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................... 1.9 Q N Q 0.6 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................................. 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 5.4 Without a

  11. Total....................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 10.4 14.1 20.5 13.7 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.3 3.4 6.1 4.1 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  12. Total....................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 14.1 10.0 4.0 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  13. Total....................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 20.5 11.0 3.4 6.1 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 6.1 3.5 0.7 1.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  14. Total....................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 13.7 4.2 9.5 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 4.1 1.1 3.0 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  15. Total....................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    111.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 22.9 9.8 14.1 11.9 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 7.4 2.7 4.0 2.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  16. Total.........................................................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ..... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer...................................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer.................................................. 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model............................................................. 58.6 3.2 3.9 4.0 6.7 Laptop Model................................................................. 16.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.4 Hours Turned on Per Week Less

  17. Total..........................................................

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... 2.0 0.4 Q 0.3 Basements Basement in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings Yes......

  18. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Housing Units Living Space Characteristics Attached 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Apartments in Buildings With-- Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Detached...

  19. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ...

  20. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  1. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Table HC7.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More Space Heating ...

  2. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Table HC7.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 40,000 to 59,999 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  3. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Income Relative to Poverty Line Below 100 Percent......1.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 1. Below 150 percent of poverty line or 60 percent of median State ...

  4. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Table HC13.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by South Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units South Census Region Home Appliances Usage Indicators South Atlantic East ...

  5. Total..........................................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... Table HC8.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by UrbanRural Location, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Housing Units (millions) Home ...

  6. Total..............................................

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... 14.8 10.5 2,263 1,669 1,079 1,312 1,019 507 N N N ConcreteConcrete Block... 5.3 3.4 2,393 1,660 1,614 Q Q Q Q Q Q Composition...

  7. Integrating Total Quality Management (TQM) and hazardous waste management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirk, N.

    1993-11-01

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and its subsequent amendments have had a dramatic impact on hazardous waste management for business and industry. The complexity of this law and the penalties for noncompliance have made it one of the most challenging regulatory programs undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The fundamentals of RCRA include ``cradle to grave`` management of hazardous waste, covering generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The regulations also address extensive definitions and listing/identification mechanisms for hazardous waste along with a tracking system. Treatment is favored over disposal and emphasis is on ``front-end`` treatment such as waste minimization and pollution prevention. A study of large corporations such as Xerox, 3M, and Dow Chemical, as well as the public sector, has shown that well known and successful hazardous waste management programs emphasize pollution prevention and employment of techniques such as proactive environmental management, environmentally conscious manufacturing, and source reduction. Nearly all successful hazardous waste programs include some aspects of Total Quality Management, which begins with a strong commitment from top management. Hazardous waste management at the Rocky Flats Plant is further complicated by the dominance of ``mixed waste`` at the facility. The mixed waste stems from the original mission of the facility, which was production of nuclear weapons components for the Department of Energy (DOE). A Quality Assurance Program based on the criterion in DOE Order 5700.6C has been implemented at Rocky Flats. All of the elements of the Quality Assurance Program play a role in hazardous waste management. Perhaps one of the biggest waste management problems facing the Rocky Flats Plant is cleaning up contamination from a forty year mission which focused on production of nuclear weapon components.

  8. National Nuclear Security Administration

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Nuclear Security Administration Savannah River Site 1 NNSA Budget ($ Millions) By Program Office FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 President Request Delta FY Request Weapon Activities 241 242 252 10 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) 340 332 270 (62) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) 77 58 91 33 Federal Expenses 4.7 5.2 5.4 .2 Total Budget for NNSA at SRS 662.7 637.2 618.4 (18.8)

  9. Generation Planning (pbl/generation)

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Generation Hydro Power Wind Power Monthly GSP BPA White Book Dry Year Tools Firstgov Generation Planning Thumbnail image of BPA White Book BPA White Book (1998-2014) Draft Dry...

  10. NNSA Next Generation Safeguards Initiative | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    This Site Budget IG Web Policy Privacy No Fear Act Accessibility FOIA Sitemap Federal Government The White House DOE.gov USA.gov Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA...

  11. nuclear security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3%2A en Shaping the future of nuclear detection http:nnsa.energy.govblogshaping-future-nuclear-detection

    Learning techniques to combat nuclear trafficking, touring the...

  12. Nuclear Power in Space

    DOE R&D Accomplishments [OSTI]

    1994-01-01

    In the early years of the United States space program, lightweight batteries, fuel cells, and solar modules provided electric power for space missions. As missions became more ambitious and complex, power needs increased and scientists investigated various options to meet these challenging power requirements. One of the options was nuclear energy. By the mid-1950s, research had begun in earnest on ways to use nuclear power in space. These efforts resulted in the first radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), which are nuclear power generators build specifically for space and special terrestrial uses. These RTGs convert the heat generated from the natural decay of their radioactive fuel into electricity. RTGs have powered many spacecraft used for exploring the outer planets of the solar system and orbiting the sun and Earth. They have also landed on Mars and the moon. They provide the power that enables us to see and learn about even the farthermost objects in our solar system.

  13. Nuclear Science

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Engineering Education Sourcebook 2013 American Nuclear Society US Department of Energy Nuclear Science & Engineering Education Sourcebook 2013 North American Edition American Nuclear Society Education, Training, and Workforce Division US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Editor and Founder John Gilligan Professor of Nuclear Engineering North Carolina State University Version 5.13 Welcome to the 2013 Edition of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Education (NS&EE)

  14. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Nuclear > U.S. reactor operation status tables Nuclear Reactor Operational Status Tables Release date: November 22, 2011 Next release date: TBD See also: Table 1. Capacity and Generation, Table 2. Ownership Data Table 3. Nuclear Reactor Characteristics and Operational History PDF XLS Plant Name Generator ID Type Reactor Supplier and Model Construction Start Grid Connection Original Expiration Date License Renewal Application License Renewal Issued Extended Expiration Arkansas Nuclear One 1

  15. Nuclear Reactor Technologies | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Reactor Technologies Nuclear Reactor Technologies TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant | Photo courtesy of Tennessee Valley Authority TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant | Photo courtesy of Tennessee Valley Authority Nuclear power has reliably and economically contributed almost 20% of electrical generation in the United States over the past two decades. It remains the single largest contributor (more than 70%) of non-greenhouse-gas-emitting electric power generation in the United States. Small

  16. nuclear enterprise

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Outlines Accomplishments in Stockpile Stewardship, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors and Managing the Nuclear Enterprise

    The...

  17. Nuclear Energy

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management ...

  18. Distributed Generation

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Untapped Value of Backup Generation While new guidelines and regulations such as IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1547 have come a long way in addressing interconnection standards for distributed generation, utilities have largely overlooked the untapped potential of these resources. Under certain conditions, these units (primarily backup generators) represent a significant source of power that can deliver utility services at lower costs than traditional centralized

  19. Distributed generation hits market

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-10-01

    The pace at which vendors are developing and marketing gas turbines and reciprocating engines for small-scale applications may signal the widespread growth of distributed generation. Loosely defined to refer to applications in which power generation equipment is located close to end users who have near-term power capacity needs, distributed generation encompasses a broad range of technologies and load requirements. Disagreement is inevitable, but many industry observers associate distributed generation with applications anywhere from 25 kW to 25 MW. Ten years ago, distributed generation users only represented about 2% of the world market. Today, that figure has increased to about 4 or 5%, and probably could settle in the 20% range within a 3-to-5-year period, according to Michael Jones, San Diego, Calif.-based Solar Turbines Inc. power generation marketing manager. The US Energy Information Administration predicts about 175 GW of generation capacity will be added domestically by 2010. If 20% comes from smaller plants, distributed generation could account for about 35 GW. Even with more competition, it`s highly unlikely distributed generation will totally replace current market structures and central stations. Distributed generation may be best suited for making market inroads when and where central systems need upgrading, and should prove its worth when the system can`t handle peak demands. Typical applications include small reciprocating engine generators at remote customer sites or larger gas turbines to boost the grid. Additional market opportunities include standby capacity, peak shaving, power quality, cogeneration and capacity rental for immediate demand requirements. Integration of distributed generation systems--using gas-fueled engines, gas-fired combustion engines and fuel cells--can upgrade power quality for customers and reduce operating costs for electric utilities.

  20. Expected brine movement at potential nuclear waste repository salt sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCauley, V.S.; Raines, G.E.

    1987-08-01

    The BRINEMIG brine migration code predicts rates and quantities of brine migration to a waste package emplaced in a high-level nuclear waste repository in salt. The BRINEMIG code is an explicit time-marching finite-difference code that solves a mass balance equation and uses the Jenks equation to predict velocities of brine migration. Predictions were made for the seven potentially acceptable salt sites under consideration as locations for the first US high-level nuclear waste repository. Predicted total quantities of accumulated brine were on the order of 1 m/sup 3/ brine per waste package or less. Less brine accumulation is expected at domal salt sites because of the lower initial moisture contents relative to bedded salt sites. Less total accumulation of brine is predicted for spent fuel than for commercial high-level waste because of the lower temperatures generated by spent fuel. 11 refs., 36 figs., 29 tabs.

  1. GET TO KNOW National Nuclear Science Week

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    GET TO KNOW National Nuclear Science Week January 23 - 27, 2012 www.nwinitiative.org Did You Know Nuclear Medicine heals many Americans. 18 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year among 305 million people in the United States. We depend on nuclear for electric power. 20 percent of our nation's electricity is generated from 104 operating reactors across the United States. Nearly half of South Carolina's electricity and one-fourth of Georgia's electric power come from nuclear

  2. Advanced Nuclear Reactors | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Advanced Nuclear Reactors Advanced Nuclear Reactors Turbulent Flow of Coolant in an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Visualizing Coolant Flow in Sodium Reactor Subassemblies Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Coolant Flow At the heart of a nuclear power plant is the reactor. The fuel assembly is placed inside a reactor vessel where all the nuclear reactions occur to produce the heat and steam used for power generation. Nonetheless, an entire power plant consists of many other support components and key

  3. Nuclear Energy University Program | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy University Program Nuclear Energy University Program NEUP Award Recipients FY2009 to FY2013 Click on the icons to find out the values of the awards given to each school. The darker the icon, the more recent the award. Drag and zoom map to see more recipients. Investing in the next generation of nuclear energy leaders and advancing university-led nuclear innovation is vital to fulfilling the Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) mission. This is accomplished primarily through NE's Nuclear Energy

  4. Vallecitos Nuclear Center, California, Site Fact Sheet

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    08/03/2015 Page 1 of 1 This fact sheet provides information about the Vallecitos Nuclear Center, California, Site. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management is responsible for maintaining records for the government-sponsored research conducted at this facility. Location of the Vallecitos Nuclear Center, California, Site Site Description and History The Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) is a 1,600 acre nuclear research facility and the site of a former electricity generating nuclear

  5. Office of Nuclear Energy | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Office of Nuclear Energy Small Modular Reactors Small Modular Reactors The Small Modular Reactor program advances the licensing and commercialization of this next-generation technology in the United States. Read more Middle School STEM Curriculum Middle School STEM Curriculum The Harnessed Atom curriculum offers essential principles and fundamental concepts on energy and nuclear science. Read more Educating Future Nuclear Engineers Educating Future Nuclear Engineers The Nuclear Energy University

  6. Exploratory Nuclear Reactor Safety Analysis and Visualization...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    algorithms and codes for both design and safety analysis. In particular, the new generation of system analysis ... We model a large-scale nuclear simulation dataset as a ...

  7. $787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded in FY2009 by

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    DOE Programs in Oak Ridge | National Nuclear Security Administration $787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded in FY2009 by DOE Programs in Oak Ridge | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations

  8. LANL, Sandia, Cray Set to Build Next Generation NNSA Supercomputer |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration LANL, Sandia, Cray Set to Build Next Generation NNSA Supercomputer | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact

  9. Presented at the Second International Meeting on Next Generation Safeguards

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    | National Nuclear Security Administration Second International Meeting on Next Generation Safeguards | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets

  10. Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and 1994 Vehicle Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total 1993 Family Income Below Poverty Line Eli- gible for Fed- eral Assist- ance 1 RSE Row Factor: Less than 5,000 5,000...

  11. ARM - Measurement - Total cloud water

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    cloud water ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Total cloud water The total concentration (mass/vol) of ice and liquid water particles in a cloud; this includes condensed water content (CWC). Categories Cloud Properties Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a

  12. Argonne nuclear pioneer: Leonard Koch

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koch, Leonard

    2012-01-01

    Leonard Koch joined Argonne National Laboratory in 1948. He helped design and build Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 (EBR-1), the first reactor to generate useable amounts of electricity from nuclear energy.

  13. World nuclear fuel cycle requirements 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-10-10

    The nuclear fuel cycle consists of mining and milling uranium ore, processing the uranium into a form suitable for generating electricity, burning'' the fuel in nuclear reactors, and managing the resulting spent nuclear fuel. This report presents projections of domestic and foreign requirements for natural uranium and enrichment services as well as projections of discharges of spent nuclear fuel. These fuel cycle requirements are based on the forecasts of future commercial nuclear power capacity and generation published in a recent Energy Information Administration (EIA) report. Also included in this report are projections of the amount of spent fuel discharged at the end of each fuel cycle for each nuclear generating unit in the United States. The International Nuclear Model is used for calculating the projected nuclear fuel cycle requirements. 14 figs., 38 tabs.

  14. Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.2 Electricity Generation, Transmission, and Distribution

    Buildings Energy Data Book [EERE]

    2010 Existing Capacity, by Energy Source (GW) Number of Generator Nameplate Net Summer Net Winter Plant Fuel Type Generators Capacity Capacity Capacity Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Other Gases Nuclear Hydroelectric Conventional Wind Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Wood and Wood Derived Fuels Geothermal Other Biomass Pumped Storage Other Total Source(s): EIA, Electric Power Annual 2010, Feb. 2012, Table 1.2. 51 1.0 0.9 0.9 18,150 1,138.6 1,039.1 1,078.7 1,574 5.0 4.4 4.4 151 20.5 22.2 22.1 346 7.9

  15. Category:Electricity Generating Technologies | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Electricity Generating Technologies Jump to: navigation, search Electricity Generating Technologies Subcategories This category has the following 5 subcategories, out of 5 total. B...

  16. Table 8.4c Consumption for Electricity Generation by Energy Source...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Renewable Energy Other 9 Electricity Net Imports Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric ...

  17. Exelôn. Generation

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Exelôn. Generation 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, Illinois 60555 Writer's Direct Dial: 630/657-3753 Writer's Direct Fax: 630/657-4323 Tamra.Domever@exeloncorp corn March 21, 2011 Memorandum Memorializing Ex Parte Communication To: expartecommunications@hg.doe.gov (sent via email) On March 14, 2011, representatives of Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon Nuclear Partners (referred to collectively as "Exelon") met with staff of the U.S. Department of Energy to discuss Exelon's

  18. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station" "Unit","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Summer cpacity factor (percent)","Type","Commercial operation date","License expiration date" 1,685,"5,918",98.7,"BWR","application/vnd.ms-excel","application/vnd.ms-excel" ,685,"5,918",98.7

  19. Microwave generator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Kwan, T.J.T.; Snell, C.M.

    1987-03-31

    A microwave generator is provided for generating microwaves substantially from virtual cathode oscillation. Electrons are emitted from a cathode and accelerated to an anode which is spaced apart from the cathode. The anode has an annular slit there through effective to form the virtual cathode. The anode is at least one range thickness relative to electrons reflecting from the virtual cathode. A magnet is provided to produce an optimum magnetic field having the field strength effective to form an annular beam from the emitted electrons in substantial alignment with the annular anode slit. The magnetic field, however, does permit the reflected electrons to axially diverge from the annular beam. The reflected electrons are absorbed by the anode in returning to the real cathode, such that substantially no reflexing electrons occur. The resulting microwaves are produced with a single dominant mode and are substantially monochromatic relative to conventional virtual cathode microwave generators. 6 figs.

  20. Nuclear Navy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-12-31

    This video tells the story of the Navy`s development of nuclear power and its application in long-range submarines and the growing nuclear surface force. Narrated by Frank Blair.