atw 2017-12

More documents

Recommendations

Info

atw Vol. 62 (2017) | Issue 12 ı December SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW 746 kein einziges Gramm CO 2 verursacht, sondern – immer noch – durch CO 2 -freie Stromproduktion in Kernkraftwerken effektiv eingespart. Die anderen Optionen, substantiell Kohlendioxid einzusparen, laufen auf teure und eingriffsintensive Maßnahmen hinaus: Das gilt für die Steigerung der Energieeffizienz durch Dämmung von Gebäuden, den weiteren Ausbau von subventionierten erneuerbaren Energien ebenso wie die Regulierung im Energie- und Verkehrssektor durch die „überstürzte“ Verbannung von Verbrennungstechnik. Das alles sind Maßnahmen, die – wie die aktuelle Situation in Deutschland zeigt – politisch zwar hochwillkommen sein mögen, tatsächlich aber einen äußerst beschwerlichen, langwierigen und vor allem sehr kostenintensiven Weg zur CO 2 -Reduktion darstellen. Noch lassen es sich die Verbraucher in Deutschland gefallen, wenn der Strompreis seit Jahren nur eine Richtung kennt: Nach oben: In Deutschland zahlen die Haushalte in diesem Jahr (Tendenz weiter steigend) mit ihrer Stromrechnung mehr als 35 Milliarden Euro für Steuern, Abgaben und Umlagen. Den größten Anteil hat mit 24 Milliarden Euro die Umlage zur Förderung der erneuerbaren Energien. Der Anteil an Steuern, Abgaben und Umlagen stieg erstmals auf 55 Prozent. Seit 1998 hat sich dieser Kostenblock verdoppelt. Für eine durchschnittliche Kilowattstunde Strom zahlen Haushalte nun 29,16 €Cent/kWh. In Frankreich indes kostet der Strom die Verbraucher nach wie vor nur 16 Cent/kWh. 4 Fazit Das alles zeigt: Ambitionierte Klimaschutzziele, die unter ganz anderen Verhältnissen und Prämissen definiert wurden als sie der Realität entsprechen, sind für sich genommen noch kein geeigneter Kompass für eine vernünftige Klimaschutz- und Energiepolitik. Das energiepolitische Zieldreieck aus Versorgungssicherheit, Wirtschaftlichkeit und Umweltverträglichkeit darf in Deutschland nicht noch weiter zulasten der Wirtschaftlichkeit in Schieflage geraten. Und dies, obwohl das Energiewirtschaftsgesetz diese Zielvorgaben ausdrücklich als ebenso gleichberechtigt wie verbindlich definiert. In Frankreich indes scheint die Vernunft die Oberhand zu behalten: Anstelle von „Schwarz-Weiß-Szenarien“ hält man sich lieber an das in der Realität Mach- und Erreichbare. In Wirklichkeit gilt: Der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien, die Regulierung des Verkehrssektors und die Stromproduktion aus Kernenergie sind keine Gegensätze, sondern ergänzen sich im Interesse von bezahlbarer Energie und effektivem Klimaschutz. Augenmaß und Vernunft – das wäre auch für die deutsche Energie- und Klimaschutzpolitik ein guter Kompass. Vive la France! Author Prof. Dr. Tobias Leidinger Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für Verwaltungsrecht Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Graf-Adolf-Platz 15 40213 Düsseldorf, Deutschland | | Editorial Advisory Board Frank Apel Erik Baumann Dr. Maarten Becker Dr. Erwin Fischer Eckehard Göring Dr. Ralf Güldner Carsten Haferkamp Dr. Petra-Britt Hoffmann Horst Kemmeter Prof. Dr. Marco K. Koch Dr. Guido Knott Ulf Kutscher Andreas Loeb Jörg Michels Roger Miesen Dr. Thomas Mull Dr. Ingo Neuhaus Dr. Joachim Ohnemus Prof. Dr. Winfried Petry Dr. Tatiana Salnikova Dr. Andreas Schaffrath Dr. Jens Schröder Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz Prof. Dr. Bruno Thomauske Dr. Walter Tromm Dr. Hannes Wimmer Ernst Michael Züfle Imprint | | Editorial Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief) Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany Phone: +49 2324 4397723 Fax: +49 2324 4397724 E-mail: editorial@nucmag.com | | Official Journal of Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG) | | Publisher INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 498555-30, Fax: +49 30 498555-18 www.nucmag.com | | General Manager Christian Wößner, Berlin, Germany | | Advertising and Subscription Sibille Wingens Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 498555-10, Fax: +49 30 498555-19 E-mail: sibille.wingens@nucmag.com | | Prize List for Advertisement Valid as of 1 January 2017 Published monthly, 11 issues per year Germany: Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 16.- € Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 176.- € All EU member states without VAT number: Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 16.- € Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 176.- € EU member states with VAT number and all other countries: Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 14.95 € Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage) 164.49 € | | Copyright The journal and all papers and photos contained in it are protected by copyright. Any use made thereof outside the Copyright Act without the consent of the publisher, INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, is prohibited. This applies to reproductions, translations, microfilming and the input and incorporation into electronic systems. The individual author is held responsible for the contents of the respective paper. Please address letters and manuscripts only to the Editorial Staff and not to individual persons of the association´s staff. We do not assume any responsibility for unrequested contributions. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial. | | Layout zi.zero Kommunikation Berlin, Germany Antje Zimmermann | | Printing inpuncto:asmuth druck + medien gmbh Baunscheidtstraße 11 53113 Bonn ISSN 1431-5254 Spotlight on Nuclear Law The French Model: Efficiently Achieving Climate Protection Targets – Nuclear Power Phase-out Scenario Adapted in Favour of Climate Protection ı Tobias Leidinger
atw Vol. 62 (2017) | Issue 12 ı December Analysis of the In-Vessel Phase of SAM Strategy for a Korean 1000 MWe PWR Sung-Min Cho, Seung-Jong Oh and Aya Diab 1 Introduction Severe accident mitigation is an important design feature for new nuclear power plants (NPPs). Unlike design basis accidents (DBAs), both scenario variations and phenomenological uncertainties are important in severe accidents. To remedy uncertainty issues, Theofanous developed Risk Oriented Accident Analysis Methodology (ROAAM). ROAAM is a consensus approach to resolve phenomenological uncertainties using bounding scenarios. However, the bounding scenario concept has its limitation in the Severe Accident Management (SAM) evaluation since the various severe accident phenomena should be considered in SAM. As an extension of ROAAM, ROAAM+ framework was proposed and used in the SAM evaluation of the Nordic Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) conducted by the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden. The processes involved in severe accidents were divided into in-vessel and exvessel phases. The analysis considered epistemic (phenomena) and aleatory (scenarios) uncertainties. In this paper, ROAAM+ framework is used to examine the in-vessel phase of SAM strategy for 1000 MWe PWR. Specifically, we aim to derive i) the successful strategies for maintaining the integrity of the reactor vessel; ii) the core melting and relocation information under this condition. Globally, there has been a growing interest to have 1000 MWe range nuclear power plants (NPPs) with better severe accident mitigation capabilities. Examples are 1000 MWe range NPPs such as AP-1000 [1], VVER-1000 [2] and ATMEA1 [3]. In this study, we envision a Korean 1000MWe Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) based on the proven OPR1000 design with APR1400's safety systems as an advanced NPP. This paper examines the evolution of plant behavior with SAM strategy of reactor coolant system (RCS) depressurization and water injection into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). The event of station blackout (SBO) is chosen as the reference case based on the APR1400 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) results [4]. The RCS depressurization is performed by opening the pilot-operated safety relief valves (POSRVs). For the RPV injection, an external pump is assumed available since all NPPs in Korea have implemented the diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX) in the wake of the Fukushima accident. To consider the scenario variation effect on SAM, the open timing of POSRVs and the external injection flow rate and timing are varied. For the phenomenological uncertainties, two parameters are considered: EPSCUT, which is the cutoff porosity below which the flow area and the hydraulic diameter of a core node are zero, and TCLMAX, which is the temperature that will lead to cladding rupture. These two parameters are selected for as the basis for the sensitivity analysis because they affect the core melting and relocation process, which is an important phenomenon for the evaluation of the in-vessel phase of SAM. In this process, information on core melting and relocation is derived, and this information can be used as an initial con dition for the next phase of SAM evaluation such as ERVC and the ex-vessel phase in the future. The computer code used in this paper is MAAP5. 2 Analysis methodology The analysis of this paper is based on the following information and assumptions. 2.1 Target plant The plant is a 1000 MWe PWR based on the proven OPR1000 design. It is envisioned that the latest safety systems of APR1400, including severe accident mitigation features [5] are implemented. New design feature improvements such as no-leakage Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) seal [6] and FLEX equipment are assumed to be adopted as well. | | Fig. 1. ROAAM+ framework for Nordic BWR [13]. 2.2 ROAAM+ framework The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden has developed Risk Oriented Accident Analysis Methodology (ROAAM+) framework and applied it to the Nordic Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) SAM evaluation. The original ROAAM was developed for assessment and management of rare and high consequence hazards [6]for example severe accident issues related to early containment failure such as steam explosion [7] and invessel retention [8]. On the other hand, the bounding scenario concept is of limited value in the Severe Accident Management (SAM) evaluation. The various severe accident phenomena, such as core relocation [9], vessel failure [10], melt ejection, ex-vessel debris coolability [11], and ex-vessel steam explosion [12] should be considered as shown in the top layer of the ROAAM+ framework for the Nordic BWR shown in Figure 1. The ROAAM+ approach, which is an extension of the original ROAAM framework, decomposes severe accident progression into a set of causal relationships represented by respective surrogate models and connected through initial conditions. It can provide an overall frame of SAM evaluation that allows determination of whether an adequate level of safety has been achieved for a plant [13]. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses are integrated in ROAAM+ 747 ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY Environment and Safety Analysis of the In-Vessel Phase of SAM Strategy for a Korean 1000 MWe PWR ı Sung-Min Cho, Seung-Jong Oh and Aya Diab
Page 1: nucmag.com 2017 12 ISSN · 1431-525
Page 4 and 5: atw Vol. 62 (2017) | Issue 12 ı De
Page 68: Atkins Energy Germany GmbH Wir habe

atw 2017-12

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?