Abstract
The PINK programme is a 4-year programme of five parties involved in nuclear energy in the Netherlands: GKN (operator of the Dodewaard plant), KEMA (Research institute of the Netherlands Utilities), ECN (Netherlands Energy Research Foundation), NUCON (Engineering and Contracting Company) and IRI (Interfaculty Reactor Institute of the Delft University of Technology), to coordinate their efforts to intensify the nuclear competence of the industry, the utilities and the research and engineering companies. This programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The PINK programme consists of five parts. This report pertains to part 1 of the programme: comparison study of advanced reactors concerning the four so-called second-stage designs SBWR, AP600, SIR and CANDU, which, compared to the first-stage reactor designs, features increased use of passive safety systems and simplification. The objective of the current study is to compare these advanced reactor designs in order to provide comprehensive information for the PINK steering committee that is useful in the selection process of a design for further study and development work. In ch. 2 the main features of the four reactors are highlighted. In ch. 3 the most important safety features and the behaviour of the four reactors under accident situations are
More>>
Bueno de Mesquita, K G;
Gout, W;
[1]
Heil, J A;
[2]
Tanke, R H.J.;
Geevers, F;
[3]
NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration
- NUCON (Netherlands)
- Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Petten (Netherlands)
- Keuring van Electrotechnische Materialen NV, Arnhem (Netherlands)
Citation Formats
Bueno de Mesquita, K G, Gout, W, Heil, J A, Tanke, R H.J., Geevers, F, and NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration.
Results of a comparison study of advanced reactors. A report by a working group of PINK Programme 1.
Netherlands: N. p.,
1991.
Web.
Bueno de Mesquita, K G, Gout, W, Heil, J A, Tanke, R H.J., Geevers, F, & NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration.
Results of a comparison study of advanced reactors. A report by a working group of PINK Programme 1.
Netherlands.
Bueno de Mesquita, K G, Gout, W, Heil, J A, Tanke, R H.J., Geevers, F, and NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration.
1991.
"Results of a comparison study of advanced reactors. A report by a working group of PINK Programme 1."
Netherlands.
@misc{etde_10117935,
title = {Results of a comparison study of advanced reactors. A report by a working group of PINK Programme 1}
author = {Bueno de Mesquita, K G, Gout, W, Heil, J A, Tanke, R H.J., Geevers, F, and NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration}
abstractNote = {The PINK programme is a 4-year programme of five parties involved in nuclear energy in the Netherlands: GKN (operator of the Dodewaard plant), KEMA (Research institute of the Netherlands Utilities), ECN (Netherlands Energy Research Foundation), NUCON (Engineering and Contracting Company) and IRI (Interfaculty Reactor Institute of the Delft University of Technology), to coordinate their efforts to intensify the nuclear competence of the industry, the utilities and the research and engineering companies. This programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The PINK programme consists of five parts. This report pertains to part 1 of the programme: comparison study of advanced reactors concerning the four so-called second-stage designs SBWR, AP600, SIR and CANDU, which, compared to the first-stage reactor designs, features increased use of passive safety systems and simplification. The objective of the current study is to compare these advanced reactor designs in order to provide comprehensive information for the PINK steering committee that is useful in the selection process of a design for further study and development work. In ch. 2 the main features of the four reactors are highlighted. In ch. 3 the most important safety features and the behaviour of the four reactors under accident situations are compared. Passive safety systems are identified and forgivingness is described and compared. Results of the preliminary probabilistic safety analysis are presented. Ch. 4 deals with the proven technology of the four concepts, ch. 5 with the Netherlands requirements, ch. 6 with commercial aspects, and ch. 7 with the fuel cycle and radioactive waste produced. In ch. 8 the costs are compared and finally in ch. 9 conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made. (author). 13 figs.}
place = {Netherlands}
year = {1991}
month = {Jun}
}
title = {Results of a comparison study of advanced reactors. A report by a working group of PINK Programme 1}
author = {Bueno de Mesquita, K G, Gout, W, Heil, J A, Tanke, R H.J., Geevers, F, and NUCON-ECN-KEMA Collaboration}
abstractNote = {The PINK programme is a 4-year programme of five parties involved in nuclear energy in the Netherlands: GKN (operator of the Dodewaard plant), KEMA (Research institute of the Netherlands Utilities), ECN (Netherlands Energy Research Foundation), NUCON (Engineering and Contracting Company) and IRI (Interfaculty Reactor Institute of the Delft University of Technology), to coordinate their efforts to intensify the nuclear competence of the industry, the utilities and the research and engineering companies. This programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The PINK programme consists of five parts. This report pertains to part 1 of the programme: comparison study of advanced reactors concerning the four so-called second-stage designs SBWR, AP600, SIR and CANDU, which, compared to the first-stage reactor designs, features increased use of passive safety systems and simplification. The objective of the current study is to compare these advanced reactor designs in order to provide comprehensive information for the PINK steering committee that is useful in the selection process of a design for further study and development work. In ch. 2 the main features of the four reactors are highlighted. In ch. 3 the most important safety features and the behaviour of the four reactors under accident situations are compared. Passive safety systems are identified and forgivingness is described and compared. Results of the preliminary probabilistic safety analysis are presented. Ch. 4 deals with the proven technology of the four concepts, ch. 5 with the Netherlands requirements, ch. 6 with commercial aspects, and ch. 7 with the fuel cycle and radioactive waste produced. In ch. 8 the costs are compared and finally in ch. 9 conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made. (author). 13 figs.}
place = {Netherlands}
year = {1991}
month = {Jun}
}