Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Small Modular”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 649 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2013

Critical Configuration and Physics Measurements for Assemblies of U(93.15)O 2 Fuel Rods (1.506-cm Pitch)

A series of critical experiments were completed from 1962–1965 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) Critical Experiments Facility (CEF) in support of the Medium-Power Reactor Experiments (MPRE) program. In the late 1950s, efforts were made to study “power plants for the production of electrical power in space vehicles.”(a) The MPRE program was a part of those efforts and studied the feasibility of a stainless-steel system, boiling potassium 1 MW(t), or about 140 kW(e), reactor. The program was carried out in [fiscal years] 1964, 1965, and 1966. A summary of the program’s effort was compiled in 1967.a The delayed critical experiments were a mockup of a small, potassium-cooled space power reactor for validation of reactor calculations and reactor physics methods. Initial experiments, performed in November and December of 1962, consisted of a core of unmoderated stainless-steel tubes, each containing 26 UO 2 fuel pellets, surrounded by a graphite reflector. Measurements were performed to determine critical reflector arrangements, relative fission-rate distributions, and cadmium ratio distributions. Subsequent experiments used beryllium reflectors and also measured the reactivity for various materials placed in the core. “The [assemblies were built] on [a] vertical assembly machine so that the movable part was the core and bottom reflector” (see Reference 1). The experiment studied in this evaluation was the second of the series and had the fuel rods in a 1.506-cm-triangular pitch. One critical configuration was found (see Reference 3). Once the critical configuration had been achieved, various measurements of reactivity, relative axial and radial activation rates of 235U,bc and cadmium ratios were performed. The cadmium ratio, reactivity, and activation rate measurements performed on the critical configuration are described in Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively.

1.506-cm pitch↗
DOE OSTI2013

Critical Configuration and Physics Measurements for Beryllium Reflected Assemblies of U(93.15)O 2 Fuel Rods (1.506-cm Pitch)

Cadmium ratios were measured with enriched uranium metal foils at various locations in the assembly with the fuel tube at the 1.506-cm spacing. They are described in the following subsections. The experiment configuration was the same as the first critical configuration described in HEU-COMP-FAST-004 (Case 1). The experimenter placed 0.75-cm-diameter × 0.010-cm-thick 93.15%-235U-enriched uranium metal foils with and without 0.051-cm-thick cadmium covers at various locations in the core and top reflector. One part of the cadmium cover was cupshape and contained the uranium foil. The other part was a lid that fit over the exposed side of the foil when it was in the cup shaped section of the cover. As can be seen in the logbook, two runs were required to obtain all the measurements necessary for the cadmium ratio. The bare foil measurements within the top reflector were run first as part of the axial foil activation measurements. The results of this run are used for both the axial activation results and the cadmium ratios. Cadmium covered foils were then placed at the same location through the top reflector in a different run. Three pairs of bare and cadmium covered foils were also placed through the core tank. One pair was placed at the axial center of a fuel tube 11.35 cm from the center of the core. Two pairs of foils were placed on top of fuel tubes 3.02 and 12.06 cm from the center of the core. The activation of the uranium metal foils was measured after removal from the assembly using two lead shielded NaI scintillation detectors as follows. The NaI scintillators were carefully matched and had detection efficiencies for counting delayed-fission-product gamma rays with energies above 250 KeV within 5%. In all foil activation measurements, one foil at a specific location was used as a normalizing foil to remove the effects of the decay of fission products during the counting measurements with the NaI detectors. The normalization foil was placed on one NaI scintillator and the other foil on the other NaI detector and the activities measured simultaneously. The activation of a particular foil was compared to that of the normalization foil by dividing the count rate for each foil by that of the normalization foil. To correct for the differing efficiencies of the two NaI detectors, the normalization foil was counted in Detector 1 simultaneously with the foil at position x in Detector 2, and then the normalization foil was counted simultaneously in Detector 2 with the foil from position x in Counter 1. The activity of the foil from position x was divided by the activity of the normalization foil counted simultaneously. This resulted in obtaining two values of the ratio that were then averaged. This procedure essentially removed the effect of the differing efficiencies of the two NaI detectors. Differing efficiencies of 10% resulted in errors in the ratios measured to less than 1%. The background counting rates obatined with the foils used for the measurements on the NaI detectors before their irradiation measurement were subtracted from all count rates. The results of the cadmium ratio measurements are given in Table 1.3-1 and Figure 1.3-1. “No correction has been made for self shielding in the foils” (Reference 3).

1.506-cm pitch↗
DOE OSTI2014

Critical Configuration and Physics Measurements for Beryllium Reflected Assemblies of U(93.15)O 2 Fuel Rods (1.506-cm Pitch and 7-Tube Clusters)

Cadmium ratios were measured with enriched uranium metal foils at various locations in the assembly with the fuel tube at the 1.506-cm spacing. They are described in the following subsections. The experiment configuration was the same as the first critical configuration described in HEU-COMP-FAST-004 (Case 1). The experimenter placed 0.75-cm-diameter × 0.010-cm-thick 93.15%-235U-enriched uranium metal foils with and without 0.051-cm-thick cadmium covers at various locations in the core and top reflector. One part of the cadmium cover was cupshape and contained the uranium foil. The other part was a lid that fit over the exposed side of the foil when it was in the cup shaped section of the cover. As can be seen in the logbook, two runs were required to obtain all the measurements necessary for the cadmium ratio. The bare foil measurements within the top reflector were run first as part of the axial foil activation measurements. The results of this run are used for both the axial activation results and the cadmium ratios. Cadmium covered foils were then placed at the same location through the top reflector in a different run. Three pairs of bare and cadmium covered foils were also placed through the core tank. One pair was placed at the axial center of a fuel tube 11.35 cm from the center of the core. Two pairs of foils were placed on top of fuel tubes 3.02 and 12.06 cm from the center of the core. The activation of the uranium metal foils was measured after removal from the assembly using two lead shielded NaI scintillation detectors as follows. The NaI scintillators were carefully matched and had detection efficiencies for counting delayed-fission-product gamma rays with energies above 250 KeV within 5%. In all foil activation measurements, one foil at a specific location was used as a normalizing foil to remove the effects of the decay of fission products during the counting measurements with the NaI detectors. The normalization foil was placed on one NaI scintillator and the other foil on the other NaI detector and the activities measured simultaneously. The activation of a particular foil was compared to that of the normalization foil by dividing the count rate for each foil by that of the normalization foil. To correct for the differing efficiencies of the two NaI detectors, the normalization foil was counted in Detector 1 simultaneously with the foil at position x in Detector 2, and then the normalization foil was counted simultaneously in Detector 2 with the foil from position x in Counter 1. The activity of the foil from position x was divided by the activity of the normalization foil counted simultaneously. This resulted in obtaining two values of the ratio that were then averaged. This procedure essentially removed the effect of the differing efficiencies of the two NaI detectors. Differing efficiencies of 10% resulted in errors in the ratios measured to less than 1%. The background counting rates obatined with the foils used for the measurements on the NaI detectors before their irradiation measurement were subtracted from all count rates. The results of the cadmium ratio measurements are given in Table 1.3-1 and Figure 1.3-1. “No correction has been made for self shielding in the foils” (Reference 3).

reactivity worth measurements↗
DOE OSTI2014

An Analysis of Methanol and Hydrogen Production via High-Temperature Electrolysis Using the Sodium Cooled Advanced Fast Reactor

Integration of an advanced, sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor into nuclear hybrid energy system (NHES) architectures is the focus of the present study. A techno-economic evaluation of several conceptual system designs was performed for the integration of a sodium-cooled Advanced Fast Reactor (AFR) with the electric grid in conjunction with wind-generated electricity. Cases in which excess thermal and electrical energy would be reapportioned within an integrated energy system to a chemical plant are presented. The process applications evaluated include hydrogen production via high temperature steam electrolysis and methanol production via steam methane reforming to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen which feed a methanol synthesis reactor. Three power cycles were considered for integration with the AFR, including subcritical and supercritical Rankine cycles and a modified supercritical carbon dioxide modified Brayton cycle. The thermal efficiencies of all of the modeled power conversions units were greater than 40%. A thermal efficiency of 42% was adopted in economic studies because two of the cycles either performed at that level or could potentially do so (subcritical Rankine and S-CO2 Brayton). Each of the evaluated hybrid architectures would be technically feasible but would demonstrate a different internal rate of return (IRR) as a function of multiple parameters; all evaluated configurations showed a positive IRR. As expected, integration of an AFR with a chemical plant increases the IRR when “must-take” wind-generated electricity is added to the energy system. Additional dynamic system analyses are recommended to draw detailed conclusions on the feasibility and economic benefits associated with AFR-hybrid energy system operation.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Local-Level Prognostics Health Management Systems Framework for Passive AdvSMR Components. Interim Report

This report describes research results to date in support of the integration and demonstration of diagnostics technologies for prototypical AdvSMR passive components (to establish condition indices for monitoring) with model-based prognostics methods. The focus of the PHM methodology and algorithm development in this study is at the localized scale. Multiple localized measurements of material condition (using advanced nondestructive measurement methods), along with available measurements of the stressor environment, enhance the performance of localized diagnostics and prognostics of passive AdvSMR components and systems.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2015

U.S. Forward Operating Base Applications of Nuclear Power

This paper provides a high level overview of current nuclear power technology and the potential use of nuclear power at military bases. The size, power ranges, and applicability of nuclear power units for military base power are reviewed. Previous and current reactor projects are described to further define the potential for nuclear power for military power.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Prototypic Enhanced Risk Monitor Framework and Evaluation - Advanced Reactor Technology Milestone: M3AT-15PN2301054

This research report summaries the development and evaluation of a prototypic enhanced risk monitor (ERM) methodology (framework) that includes alternative risk metrics and uncertainty analysis. This updated ERM methodology accounts for uncertainty in the equipment condition assessment (ECA), the prognostic result, and the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model. It is anticipated that the ability to characterize uncertainty in the estimated risk and update the risk estimates in real time based on equipment condition assessment (ECA) will provide a mechanism for optimizing plant performance while staying within specified safety margins. These results (based on impacting active component O&M using real-time equipment condition information) are a step towards ERMs that, if integrated with AR supervisory plant control systems, can help control O&M costs and improve affordability of advanced reactors.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Preliminary Assessment of Two Alternative Core Design Concepts for the Special Purpose Reactor

The Special Purpose Reactor (SPR) is a small 5 MWt, heat pipe-cooled, fast reactor based on the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Mega-Power concept. The LANL concept features a stainless steel monolithic core structure with drilled channels for UO2 pellet stacks and evaporator sections of the heat pipes. Two alternative active core designs are presented here that replace the monolithic core structure with simpler and easier to manufacture fuel elements. The two new core designs are simply referred to as Design A and Design B. In addition to ease of manufacturability, the fuel elements for both Design A and Design B can be individually fabricated, assembled, inspected, tested, and qualified prior to their installation into the reactor core leading to greater reactor system reliability and safety. Design A fuel elements will require the development of a new hexagonally-shaped UO2 fuel pellet. The Design A configuration will consist of an array of hexagonally-shaped fuel elements with each fuel element having a central heat pipe. This hexagonal fuel element configuration results in four radial gaps or thermal resistances per element. Neither the fuel element development, nor the radial gap issue are deemed to be serious and should not impact an aggressive reactor deployment schedule. Design B uses embedded arrays of heat pipes and fuel pins in a double-wall tank filled with liquid metal sodium. Sodium is used to thermally bond the heat pipes to the fuel pins, but its usage may create reactor transportation and regulatory challenges. An independent panel of U.S. manufacturing experts has preliminarily assessed the three SPR core designs and views Design A as simplest to manufacture. Herein are the results of a preliminary neutronic, thermal, mechanical, material, and manufacturing assessment of both Design A and Design B along with comparisons to the LANL concept (monolithic core structure). Despite the active core differences, all three reactor concepts behave similarly and retain the same ex-core features and characteristics. While INL has developed Designs A and B, LANL is evaluating a Hot Isostatic Pressed reactor configuration to overcome the drawbacks of the monolithic core design.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Preliminary Assessment of Two Alternative Core Design Concepts for the Special Purpose Reactor

The Special Purpose Reactor (SPR) is a small 5 MWt, heat pipe-cooled, fast reactor based on the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Mega-Power concept. The LANL concept features a stainless steel monolithic core structure with drilled channels for UO 2 pellet stacks and evaporator sections of the heat pipes. Two alternative active core designs are presented here that replace the monolithic core structure with simpler and easier to manufacture fuel elements. The two new core designs are simply referred to as Design A and Design B. In addition to ease of manufacturability, the fuel elements for both Design A and Design B can be individually fabricated, assembled, inspected, tested, and qualified prior to their installation into the reactor core leading to greater reactor system reliability and safety. Design A fuel elements will require the development of a new hexagonally-shaped UO 2 fuel pellet. The Design A configuration will consist of an array of hexagonally-shaped fuel elements with each fuel element having a central heat pipe. This hexagonal fuel element configuration results in four radial gaps or thermal resistances per element. Neither the fuel element development, nor the radial gap issue are deemed to be serious and should not impact an aggressive reactor deployment schedule. Design B uses embedded arrays of heat pipes and fuel pins in a double-wall tank filled with liquid metal sodium. Sodium is used to thermally bond the heat pipes to the fuel pins, but its usage may create reactor transportation and regulatory challenges. An independent panel of U.S. manufacturing experts has preliminarily assessed the three SPR core designs and views Design A as simplest to manufacture. Herein are the results of a preliminary neutronic, thermal, mechanical, material, and manufacturing assessment of both Design A and Design B along with comparisons to the LANL concept (monolithic core structure). Despite the active core differences, all three reactor concepts behave similarly and retain the same ex-core features and characteristics. While INL has developed Designs A and B, LANL is evaluating a Hot Isostatic Pressed reactor configuration to overcome the drawbacks of the monolithic core design.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Regulatory and Licensing Strategy for Microreactor Technology

With electricity demand on the rise, an increase in the use of nuclear energy is needed in order to meet future energy demands. The use of nuclear energy will not only begin to positively address this demand, but will also mitigate the negative impacts of carbon-induced climate change and provide energy security to the United States. An appropriate option to address the increasing energy demand is the use of advanced reactor systems like microreactors. Microreactors, often referred to as special-purpose reactors or vSMRs, are neutronically simple, factory manufacturable, easily transportable, and designed to produce less than 20 MWt (for classification as Hazard Category 2 per 10 CFR 830, DOE STD 1027). These reactors are decentralized energy sources that have the ability to provide sustainable and affordable power to remote communities and to industrial users, while having self-contained geometry that requires very low maintenance care. In order for microreactors to be approved for operation, they must abide by and successfully complete a rigorous regulatory and licensing process monitored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE), or the Department of Defense (DoD). Because microreactors are a relatively new and disruptive technology, there is no clear licensing path for them to follow. Current licensing frameworks are tailored specifically to large, traditional light water reactors (LWRs) that have been developed and understood by the nuclear industry for many years. Unlike LWRs, microreactors have major design differences, specifically in the materials, coolant, reflectors and potential technology applications used. They also have higher in-core operating temperatures, which have the potential to push the materials used past their allowable limits. Because they are much smaller, safety margins, the amount of space required for assembly, and the distances required to meet dose-based regulatory criteria can technically be altered to better fit their new size. The following strategies and recommendations are intended to assure that key licensing issues do not influence the path to microreactor development, demonstration, and commercialization: Nuclear Regulatory Commission • The NRC should address the lack of knowledge and support of risk informed decision-making concepts from staff members and continue to advance and communicate risk initiatives using their Risk Informed Steering Committee • More research should be done into whether or not microreactors, which are small Class 103 facilities, can be licensed using Class 104-type guidance (e.g., NUREG 1537) • The NRC should use frequency-consequence curves to incrementally reduce regulatory uncertainty and risk to facilitate future construction and operation of advanced reactor designs Department of Energy • The DOE should continue to implement their multi-step Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table process in order to help detect and recommend the major design and technology work needed for licensing future reactor systems • The DOE should consider a joint licensing approach with the NRC where microreactors first go through the DOE process, then finish with the NRC process, providing an advantage for both applicants and NRC staff Department of Defense • The DoD should invest in personnel with sufficient expertise, incorporate their military reactors into tactical power systems, and self-regulate using Section 91b of the Atomic Energy Act Transportation • Licensees should convert enriched uranium hexafluoride into metal or oxide at an enrichment facility and then transport them to a fabrication facility • To avoid transportation issues altogether, licensees should consider positioning the enrichment and fabrication facilities on the same site • The DOE should provide their support in developing new shipping packages for safe transport, criticality benchmark data needed to license high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel facilities and transport packages, and provide financial and technical help to the Department of Transportation; and, • The NRC should help transportation efforts by finalizing and developing guidance for implementing 10 CFR 73 and 10 CFR 74 specifically for Category 2 Special Nuclear Material.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower FAST Commissioning Technical Analysis

This report is designed to address barriers and solutions to modern pumped storage hydropower (PSH) development by establishing baseline project development knowledge, defining key aspects of project development, and identifying opportunities to reduce project timelines, costs, and risks. This report’s scope includes post-licensing activities and excludes factors related to permitting or licensing. The U.S. PSH fleet is composed of 43 projects providing the majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the US. However, only one new PSH facility has become operational in the past 20 years. Several factors contribute to diminishing PSH growth in the US, including the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction; the length of time from project investment until project revenue; permitting challenges and construction risks; competition from other storage technologies; and unrecognized energy storage valuation. Although innovative PSH concepts (including underground, small, and modular systems) have been investigated, widespread application has yet to occur. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development has resulted in limited recent growth in the United States, despite the rising energy storage demand from increased deployment of variable renewable technologies. To address these challenges, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning project, aimed at catalyzing new solutions, designs, and strategies to accelerate PSH development. This report uses available data from previous license applications, ongoing project cost data, and other global PSH project information based on a typical closed-loop PSH project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

NRIC Integrated Energy Systems Demonstration Pre-Conceptual Designs

This report presents pre-conceptual design scenarios for a potential multiphase demonstration program for innovative uses of nuclear energy with the National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) and the Crosscutting Technology Development Integrated Energy Systems (CTD IES) program in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. The demonstration program would address the need for low-carbon energy sources among industry stakeholders by identifying and implementing high-impact advanced nuclear projects within a holistic systems perspective. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the managing and operating contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) for industry stakeholder participation in the potential demonstration program. Funding sources have not yet been identified for the demonstration program. Responses to the EOI will shape the development and funding requirements for the potential program and inform the down-selection of project designs for further planning and analysis from the wide set of pre-conceptual design scenarios shown in this report. This introductory section summarizes the need for low-carbon energy sources, describes the phases envisioned for the demonstration program, and outlines the organization of this report.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Global Market Analysis of Microreactors

Microreactors are smaller and simplified versions of nuclear power plants using current generation and advanced nuclear technology designs. The purpose of this report is to assesses the unique capabilities of microreactors and assess potential deployment in specific global markets in the 2030-2050 timeframe, with consideration for regulatory limits. The methods include developing unique microreactor deployment indicators and matching use cases to define future profile markets. Top-down and bottom-up analysis techniques were used to evaluate emerging market trends, derive a range of possible demands, and rank potential markets in 63 countries including current nuclear users and newcomer countries. Deployment is considered from regulatory and planning perspectives. Results indicate significant potential for global deployment of microreactors, but also significant challenges in achieving the technical capacities, meeting regulatory requirements and international accords, achieving competitive costs, and for gaining public acceptance. Profile microreactor markets were identified that include isolated operations, distributed energy, resilient urban applications, marine propulsion, and disaster relief. Market demands could be strong in Western Europe and possibly even the U.S., but particularly strong across Asia and Eastern Europe in isolated operations and distributed energy applications. Build rates in the hundreds of units by 2040 and thousands by 2050 would be needed to attain market penetration at scale.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Use Cases and Model Development of Thermal Storage Coupling for Advanced Nuclear Reactors

This report discusses the different options for coupling thermal energy storage (TES) systems to advanced nuclear power plants (A-NPPs) in order to enable flexible and hybrid plant operation. An advanced light-water reactor (ALWR) and a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) were selected as the initial use cases for demonstrating a thermally balanced energy storage coupling design for thermal power extraction. Cost functions for the A-LWR were derived from the fully balanced models that were developed based on three different coupling options with three different thermal energy bypass ratios. For the next steps, cost functions for the HTGR will also be derived, and additional nuclear reactors (e.g., a liquid-cooled fast reactor [LFR] or molten-salt reactor [MSR]) will be evaluated for coupling with TES in similar fashion, including the evaluation of their steady-state condition models and cost functions. The models presented herein showcase several design considerations, focusing on optimal deployment methodologies for achieving steady-state operation with minimum disruption to the nuclear power generation cycle. This report presents the results of steady state models developed using Aspen HYSYS®, wherein the thermal energy bypass for an NPP-TES coupling was varied up to 50%. The various components were sized using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) and Aspen Exchanger Design and Rating (EDR), when applicable. Cost functions from these models were developed using the latest publicly available data obtained from APEA V11. The current steady-state models and cost functions provide a baseline for additional work focusing on dynamic operation and process optimization by using Idaho National Laboratory (INL)’s Framework for Optimization of Resources and Economics (FORCE) tools to evaluate the technoeconomic viability and transient operations of TES-coupled A-NPPs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Preliminary Process and Instrumentation Design of Advanced Reactor Integration with Refineries and Hydrogen Production Facilities

With the ongoing push to decarbonize energy use and especially greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, there are incentives to investigate how nuclear reactors may be used to generate clean energy and be used in various energy economies beyond just the electrical grid. Two initial integrations, high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) and oil refineries, are investigated in this first DOE Integrated Energy Systems (IES) program detailed industrial integration design report. Increasingly detailed reports are anticipated both for the industries discussed in this report and for additional industries in the future of the program. This report is a robust starting point showing how integration thermodynamic analysis establishes the requirements on the reactor and methods by which those requirements can be evaluated for specific reactor designs. Two Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program awardees are selected as representative designs for their respective technologies: NuScale for light-water reactors (LWRs) and X-Energy for high temperature gas reactors (HTGRs). Other reactor technologies or specific reactor configurations would require specific analysis similar to what is done in this report, thus this report can be a reference point by which to extend this work to other nuclear plant designs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Reference Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams for Heat Transport Systems for Methanol Plants

This report aims to bridge the gap between advanced nuclear reactor vendors and methanol producers seeking decarbonization. It equips both parties with tools and preliminary information for integrating clean heat from advanced reactors into novel methanol production processes. The proposed investigation in this report involves a three-step approach: 1. Design of Current and Decarbonized Process Models for Methanol Production. This report initiates process modeling of two novel methanol production pathways, with their overall energy requirements comparative to classical methanol production (see Figure ES1). The two process models provide the foundation for analyzing integration of hermos-electric generation from advanced nuclear reactors. 2. Identification of Coupling Points to Integrate Advanced Reactors. This report investigates the integration with two advanced reactor technologies: light-water reactors (LWRs) and high-temperature gas reactors (HTGRs). The key coupling points between advanced nuclear reactors and the production facilities associated with the two decarbonized methanol process pathways are identified. 3. Preliminary Heat and Electricity Transfer Design from Reactors to Methanol Production Sites. The preliminary designs for piping and instrumentation to transfer heat from the boundary of advanced reactor technology location to the boundary of methanol production site are evaluated within the context of decarbonized pathways. The pipe analysis for heat transfer adheres to relevant codes and specifications from American Society of Mechanical Engineering. A simplified design for transmission of electricity to the industrial site has been provided.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗