Everything about The Candu totally explained
The
CANDU reactor is a
pressurized heavy water reactor developed initially in the late 1950s and 1960s by a partnership between
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the
Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario (now known as
Ontario Power Generation), Canadian
General Electric (now known as GE Canada), as well as several private industry participants. The acronym "CANDU", a registered trademark of
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, stands for "CANada Deuterium Uranium". This is a reference to its deuterium-oxide (
heavy water)
moderator and its use of
uranium fuel (originally,
natural uranium). All current power reactors in
Canada are of the CANDU type. Canada markets this power reactor abroad.
Design features
The CANDU reactor is conceptually similar to most
light water reactors, although it "differs in the details".
Fission reactions in the
nuclear reactor core heat a fluid, in this case
heavy water (see below). This coolant is kept under high pressure to raise its
boiling point and avoid significant
steam formation in the core. The hot heavy water generated in this
primary cooling loop is passed into a
heat exchanger heating
light water in the less-pressurized
secondary cooling loop. This water turns to steam and powers a conventional
turbine with a
generator attached to it. Any excess heat energy in the steam after flowing through the turbine is rejected into the environment in a variety of ways, most typically into a large body of cool water, such as a lake, river or ocean. Heat can also be disposed of using a
cooling tower, but they're avoided whenever possible because they reduce the plant's efficiency. More recently-built CANDU plants, such as the
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station near
Toronto, Ontario, use a discharge-diffuser system that limits the thermal effects in the environment to within natural variations.
At the time of its design, Canada lacked the heavy industry to cast and machine the large, heavy
steel pressure vessel used in most
light water reactors. Instead, the pressure is contained in much smaller tubes, 10 cm diameter, that contain the fuel bundles. These smaller tubes are easier to fabricate than a large pressure vessel. In order to allow the
neutrons to flow freely between the bundles, the tubes are made of
zircaloy, which is highly transparent to neutrons. The zircaloy tubes are surrounded by a much larger low-pressure tank known as a "
calandria", which contains the majority of the
moderator.
Canada also lacked access to
uranium enrichment facilities, which were then extremely expensive to construct and operate. The CANDU was therefore designed to use natural uranium as its fuel, like the
ZEEP reactor, the first Canadian reactor. Traditional designs using light water as a moderator will absorb too many neutrons to allow a
chain reaction to occur in natural uranium due to the low density of "active" nuclei.
Heavy water absorbs fewer neutrons than light water, allowing a high "neutron economy" that can sustain a chain reaction even in unenriched fuel. Also, the low temperature of the moderator (below the boiling point of water) reduces changes in the neutrons' speeds from collisions with the moving particles of the moderator ("neutron scattering"). The neutrons therefore are easier to keep near the optimum speed to cause fissioning; they've good "spectral purity". At the same time, they're still somewhat scattered, giving an efficient range of neutron energies.
The large
thermal mass of the moderator provides a significant
heat sink that acts as an additional
safety feature. If a fuel assembly were to overheat and deform within its fuel channel, the resulting change of geometry permits high
heat transfer to the cool moderator, thus preventing the breach of the fuel channel, and the possibility of a
meltdown. Furthermore, because of the use of natural uranium as fuel, this reactor can't sustain a chain reaction if its original fuel channel geometry is altered in any significant manner.
In a traditional light water reactor (LWR) design, the entire reactor core is a single large pressure vessel containing the light water, which acts as moderator and coolant, and the fuel arranged in a series of long bundles running the length of the core. To refuel such a reactor, it must be shut down, the pressure dropped, the "lid" removed, and a significant fraction of the core inventory, such as one-third, replaced in a batch procedure. The CANDU's calandria-based design allows individual fuel bundles to be removed without taking the reactor off-line, improving overall
duty cycle or
capacity factor. A pair of remotely-controlled fueling machines visit each end of an individual fuel string. One machine inserts new fuel while the other receives discharged fuel.
A lower
235U density also generally implies that less of the fuel will be "burned" before the fission rate drops too low to sustain criticality (due primarily to the relative depletion of
235U compared with the build-up of parasitic
fission products). However, by avoiding the uranium enrichment process, overall utilization of mined uranium in CANDU reactors is significantly less than in light-water reactors, about 30-40% less, using current designs.
A CANDU fuel assembly consists of a number of zircaloy tubes containing ceramic pellets of fuel arranged into a cylinder that fits within the fuel channel in the reactor. In older designs the assembly had 28 or 37 half-meter long fuel tubes with 12 such assemblies lying end to end in a fuel channel. The relatively new
CANFLEX bundle has 43 tubes, with two pellet sizes. It is about 10 cm (four inches) in diameter, 0.5 m (20 inches) long and weighs about 20 kg (44 lb) and replaces the 37-tube bundle. It has been designed specifically to increase fuel performance by utilizing two different pellet diameters.
A number of distributed light-water compartments called liquid zone controllers help control the rate of fission. The liquid zone controllers absorb excess neutrons and slow the fission reaction in their regions of the reactor core.
CANDU reactors employ two independent, fast-acting safety shutdown systems. Shutoff rods penetrate the calandria vertically and lower into the core in the case of a safety-system trip. A secondary shutdown system involves injecting high-pressure
gadolinium nitrate solution directly into the low-pressure moderator.
Purpose of using heavy water
» See nuclear reactor physics and nuclear fission and heavy water for complete details.
The key to maintaining a
nuclear reaction within a
nuclear reactor is to use the
neutrons being released during
fission to stimulate fission in other nuclei. With careful control over the geometry and reaction rates, this can lead to a self-sustaining
chain reaction, a state known as "
criticality".
Natural uranium consists of a mixture of various
isotopes, primarily
238U and a much smaller amount (about 0.72% by weight) of
235U.
238U can only be fissioned by neutrons that are fairly energetic, about 1
MeV or above. No amount of
238U can be made "critical", however, since it'll tend to parasitically absorb more neutrons than it releases by the fission process.
235U, on the other hand, can support a self-sustained chain reaction, but due to the low natural abundance of
235U, natural uranium can't achieve criticality by itself.
The "trick" to making a working reactor is to slow some of the neutrons to the point where their probability of causing nuclear fission in
235U increases to a level that permits a sustained chain reaction in the uranium as a whole. This requires the use of a
neutron moderator, which absorbs some of the neutrons'
kinetic energy, slowing them down to an energy comparable to the thermal energy of the moderator nuclei themselves (leading to the terminology of "
thermal neutrons" and "thermal reactors"). During this slowing-down process it's beneficial to physically separate the neutrons from the uranium, since
238U nuclei have an enormous parasitic affinity for neutrons in this intermediate energy range (a reaction known as "resonance" absorption). This is a fundamental reason for designing reactors with discrete solid fuel separated by moderator, rather than employing a more homogeneous mixture of the two materials.
Water makes an excellent moderator. The
hydrogen atoms in the water molecules are very close in mass to a single neutron and thus have a potential for high energy transfer, similar conceptually to the collision of two billiard balls. However, in addition to being a good moderator, water is also fairly effective at absorbing neutrons. Using water as a moderator will absorb enough neutrons that there will be too few left over to react with the small amount of
235U in natural uranium, again precluding criticality. So,
light water reactors require fuel with an enhanced amount of
235U in the uranium, that is,
enriched uranium which generally contains between 3% and 5%
235U by weight (the waste from this process is known as
depleted uranium, consisting primarily of
238U). In this enriched form there
is enough
235U to react with the water-moderated neutrons to maintain criticality.
One complication of this approach is the requirement to build
uranium enrichment facilities which are generally expensive to build and operate. They also present a
nuclear proliferation concern since the same systems used to enrich the
235U can also be used to produce much more "pure"
weapons-grade material (90% or more
235U), suitable for making a
nuclear bomb. Operators could reduce these issues by purchasing ready-made fuel assemblies from the reactor supplier and have the latter reprocess the spent fuel.
An alternative solution to the problem is to use a moderator that does
not absorb neutrons as readily as water. In this case potentially all of the neutrons being released can be moderated and used in reactions with the
235U, in which case there
is enough
235U in natural uranium to sustain criticality. One such moderator is
heavy water, or deuterium-oxide. It reacts dynamically with the neutrons in a similar fashion to
light water, albeit with less energy transfer on average given that heavy hydrogen, or
deuterium, is about twice the mass of hydrogen. The advantage is that it already has the extra neutron that light water would normally tend to absorb, reducing the absorption rate.
The use of heavy water moderator is the key to the CANDU system, enabling the use of natural uranium as fuel (in the form of ceramic UO
2), which means that it can be operated without expensive uranium enrichment facilities. Additionally, the mechanical arrangement of the CANDU, which places most of the moderator at lower temperatures, is particularly efficient because the resulting thermal neutrons are "more thermal" than in traditional designs, where the moderator normally runs hot. This means that the CANDU isn't only able to "burn" natural uranium and other fuels, but tends to do so more effectively as well.
Fuel cycles
Compared with light water reactors, a heavy water design is "neutron rich". This makes the CANDU design suitable for "burning" a number of alternative nuclear fuels. To date, the fuel to gain the most attention is
mixed oxide fuel (MOX). MOX is a mixture of natural uranium and
plutonium, such as that extracted from former
nuclear weapons. Currently there's a worldwide surplus of plutonium due to the various United States and Soviet agreements to dismantle many of their warheads, and the security of these supplies is a cause for concern. By burning this plutonium in a CANDU it's removed from use, turning it into energy.
Plutonium can also be extracted from spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. While this consists usually of a mixture of isotopes that isn't attractive for use in weapons, it can be used in a MOX formulation reducing the net amount of nuclear waste that has to be disposed of.
Plutonium isn't the only fissile material in spent nuclear fuel that CANDU reactors can utilize. Because the CANDU reactor was designed to work with natural uranium, CANDU fuel can be manufactured from the used (depleted) uranium found in
light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel. Typically this "Recovered Uranium" (RU) has a U-235 enrichment of around 0.9%, which makes it unusable to an LWR, but a rich source of fuel to a CANDU (natural uranium has a U-235 abundance of roughly 0.7%). It is estimated that a CANDU reactor can extract a further 30-40% energy from LWR fuel by recycling it in a CANDU reactor.
Recycling of LWR fuel doesn't necessarily need to involve a reprocessing step. Fuel cycle tests have also included the
DUPIC fuel cycle, or
direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU, where used fuel from a
pressurized water reactor is packaged into a CANDU fuel bundle with only physical reprocessing (cut into pieces) but no chemical reprocessing. Again, where light-water reactors require the reactivity associated with enriched fuel, the DUPIC fuel cycle is possible in a CANDU reactor due to the
neutron economy which allows for the low reactivity of natural uranium and used enriched fuel.
Several Inert-Matrix Fuels have been proposed for the CANDU design, which have the ability to "burn" plutonium and other
actinides from spent nuclear fuel, much more efficiently than in MOX fuel. This is due to the "inert" nature of the fuel, so-called because it lacks uranium and thus doesn't create plutonium at the same time as it's being consumed.
CANDU reactors can also breed fuel from natural
thorium, if uranium is unavailable.
Chronology
The first CANDU-type reactor was
Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD), in Rolphton, Ontario. It was intended as a proof-of-concept design, and was rated for only 22
MWe, a very low power for a commercial power reactor. It produced the first nuclear-generated electricity in Canada, and ran successfully from 1962 to 1987.
The second CANDU was the
Douglas Point reactor, a more powerful version rated at roughly 200
MWe and located near
Kincardine, Ontario. Douglas Point went into service in 1968, and ran until 1984. Uniquely among CANDU stations, Douglas Point incorporated an oil-filled window which offered a view of the east reactor face, even when the reactor was operating. The Douglas Point type was exported to
India, and was the basis for India's fleet of domestically-designed and built 'CANDU-derivatives'. Douglas Point was originally planned to be a two-unit station, but the second unit was cancelled because of the success of the larger 515 MWe units at
Pickering.
In parallel to the development of the classic CANDU heavy-water design, experimental CANDU variants were developed.
WR-1, located at the
AECL's
Whiteshell Laboratories in
Pinawa, Manitoba, used vertical pressure tubes and organic
oil as the primary coolant. The oil used has a higher boiling point than water, allowing the reactor to operate at higher temperatures and lower pressures than a conventional reactor. This reactor operated successfully for many years, and promised a significantly higher thermal efficiency than water-cooled versions.
Gentilly-1, near
Trois-Rivières, Québec, was also an experimental version of CANDU, using a boiling light-water coolant and vertical pressure tubes, but wasn't considered successful and was closed after 7 years of fitful operation.
The successes at NPD and Douglas Point led to the decision to construct the first multi-unit station in Pickering, Ontario. Pickering A, consisting of units 1 to 4, went into service in 1971. Pickering B, consisting of units 5 to 8, went into service in 1983, giving a full-station capacity of 4,120 MWe. The station is placed very close to the city of
Toronto, in order to reduce
transmission costs.
Pickering A was placed into voluntary lay-up in 1997, as a part of
Ontario Hydro's Nuclear Improvement plan. Units 1 and 4 have since been returned to service, although not without considerable controversy regarding significant cost-overruns, especially on Unit 4. (The refurbishment of Unit 1 was essentially on-time and on-budget, accounting for delays in project startup imposed by the Ontario provincial government.)
In 2005,
Ontario Power Generation announced that refurbishment of Units 2 and 3 at Pickering A wouldn't be pursued, contrary to expectations. The reason for this change in plan was economic: the material condition of these units was much poorer than had existed for Units 1 and 4, particularly the condition of the steam generators, and thus the refurbishment costs would be much higher. This rendered a return-to-service of Units 2 and 3 uneconomical. A project to decommission these units is currently in the early stages of planning.
Economics
The central functionality behind the CANDU design is heavy water moderation and on-line refuelling, which permits a range of fuel types to be used (including natural uranium, enriched uranium, thorium, and used fuel from Light Water Reactors). Significant fuel cost savings can be realized if the uranium doesn't have to be enriched, but simply formed into ceramic natural uranium-dioxide fuel. This saves not only on the construction of an enrichment plant, but also on the costs of processing the fuel.
However, some of this potential savings is offset by the initial, one time cost of the heavy water. The heavy water required must be more than 99.75% pure and tonnes of this are required to fill the calandria and the heat transfer system. The next generation reactor (the
Advanced CANDU Reactor, also called the "ACR") mitigates this disadvantage by having a smaller moderator size and by using light water as a coolant.
Since heavy water is less efficient at transferring energy from neutrons, the moderator volume (relative to fuel volume) is larger in CANDU reactors compared with light-water designs, making a CANDU reactor core generally larger than a light water reactor of the same power output. In turn, this implies higher building costs for standard features like the
containment building. This is offset to some degree by the calandria-based construction, but even considering this, the CANDU tends to have higher capital costs compared with other designs. In fact, CANDU plant costs are dominated by construction costs, the price of fuel representing perhaps 10% of the cost of the power it delivers. This is true in general of nuclear plants, where the plant cost and cost of operations represent about 65% of overall lifetime cost. Due to the lower fuelling costs compared to light water reactor designs, the levelized lifetime cost on a "per-kWh" basis tends to be comparable to these other designs.
When first being offered, CANDUs offered much better "running" time statistics, the
capacity factor, than light-water reactors of a similar generation. At the time, light-water (LWR) designs spent, on average, about half of their time in maintenance or refueling outages. However, since the 1980s dramatic improvements in LWR outage management have narrowed the gap between LWR and CANDU, with several LWR units achieving capacity factors in the 90% and higher range, with an overall fleet performance of 89.5% in 2005. The latest-generation CANDU 6 reactors have demonstrated an 88-90% capacity factor, but overall fleet performance is dominated by the older Canadian units which generally report capacity factors on the order of 80%.
Some CANDU plants suffered from cost overruns during construction, primarily due to external factors. For instance, a number of imposed construction delays led to roughly a doubling of the projected cost of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station near Toronto, Ontario. Technical problems and redesigns added about another billion to the resulting $14.4 billion price. In contrast, the two CANDU 6 reactors more recently installed in China at the Qinshan site were completed on-schedule and on-budget, an achievement attributed to tight control over scope and schedule.
Nuclear nonproliferation
In terms of safeguards against
nuclear proliferation, CANDU reactors meet a similar level of international certification as other reactor designs. However, there's a common misconception that the plutonium for India's
Operation Smiling Buddha nuclear test was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, the plutonium was produced in the unsafeguarded
CIRUS reactor that's based on the
NRX design, a Canadian research reactor design. In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some unsafeguarded
pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these sources in the
PREFRE reprocessing facility. While all of these reactors could in principle be used for plutonium production, India has a locally-designed military plutonium production reactor called
Dhruva which is a scaled-up version of the CIRUS designed for plutonium production. It is this reactor which is thought to have produced the plutonium for India's more recent
Operation Shakti nuclear tests.
Another concern is
tritium production. Although heavy water is relatively immune to neutron capture, a small amount of the deuterium turns into tritium via this process. Tritium, when mixed with deuterium, undergoes
nuclear fusion more easily than any other elemental mixture. Small amounts of tritium can be used in both the "trigger" of an
A-bomb and the "fusion boost" of a
boosted fission weapon. Tritium can also be used in the main fusion process of an
H-bomb, but in this application it's typically generated
in situ by neutron irradiation of
lithium-6.
Tritium is extracted from the CANDU plants in operation in Canada, primarily to improve safety in case of heavy-water leakage. The gas is stockpiled and used in a variety of commercial products, notably
"powerless" lighting systems and medical devices. In 1985 what was then Ontario Hydro sparked controversy in Ontario due to its plans to sell tritium to the US. The plan, by law, involved sales to non-military applications only, but some speculated that even this minor penetration of the market would aid the U.S. nuclear weapon program. Demands for this supply in the future appear to outstrip production; in particular the needs of future generations of experimental
fusion reactors like
ITER will use up a significant amount of any potential stockpile. Currently between 1.5 and 2.1 kg of tritium are recovered yearly at the Darlington separation facility, of which a minor fraction is sold.
The 1998
Operation Shakti test series in India included one bomb of about 45 kT yield that India has publicly claimed was a hydrogen bomb. An offhand comment in the
BARC publication
Heavy Water - Properties, Production and Analysis appears to suggest that the tritium was extracted from the heavy water in the CANDU and PHWR reactors in commercial operation.
Janes Intelligence Review quotes the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission as admitting to the tritium extraction plant, but refusing to comment on its use. It is known, however, that India possesses the indigenous technology to create tritium from the neutron-irradiation of lithium-6 in reactors, a process that's several orders of magnitude more efficient than the extraction of tritium from irradiated heavy water.
Active CANDU reactors
Today there are 30 CANDU reactors in use around the world, and a further 13 "CANDU-derivatives" in use in India (these reactors were developed from the CANDU design after India detonated a nuclear bomb and Canada stopped nuclear dealings with India).
The countries the reactors are located in are:
New plants
Interest continues to be expressed in new CANDU construction around the world, and CANDU technology is typically involved in open bidding processes alongside LWR technology.
CANDU reactors have been proposed as the main vehicle for planned supply replacement and growth in
Ontario, Canada, a province that currently generates over 50% of its electricity from CANDU reactors. Interest has also been expressed in
Western Canada, where CANDU reactors are being considered as heat and electricity sources for the energy-intensive
oil sands extraction process, which currently uses
natural gas.
Energy Alberta Corporation, headquartered in Calgary, announced
August 272007 that they'd filed application for a license to build a new nuclear plant at Lac Cardinal (30 km west of the town of
Peace River (Alberta). The application would see an initial twin
AECL ACR-1000 plant go online in
2017, producing 2.2
gigawatt (electric).
Romania is in discussions for the completion of its multi-unit nuclear plant at
Cernavoda, now consisting of two operating CANDU reactors. Three more partially-completed CANDU reactors exist on the same site, part of a project discontinued at the close of the
Nicolae Ceauşescu regime.
Turkey has repeatedly shown interest in the CANDU reactor, but so far has chosen not to pursue nuclear energy. In the summer of 2006, Turks protested against plans for building nuclear reactors.
Enhanced CANDU 6
The Enhanced CANDU 6 is an evolutionary upgrade of the standard CANDU 6 design rated to deliver a gross output of 740 MWe per unit.
The units are designed with a planned operating life of over fifty years, which will be achieved with a mid-life program to replace some of the key components, such as the fuel channels. The plants have a projected average annual capacity factor of more than nintety per cent.
Enhancement of the CANDU 6 design to achieve higher plant output include: the installation of an Ultrasonic Flow Meter (UFM) to improve the accuracy of feedwater flow measurements, improvements in turbine design itself and change in condenser vacuum system design for operation at lower condenser pressures.
AECL continues to develop other features to further improve the plant’s performance while maintaining the basic features of the CANDU 6 design, which over time have proven to be extremely reliable with an excellent production record since the early 1980s. The additional enhancements include:
Increased plant margins, both operational and safety
Enhanced environmental protection
Improved Severe Accident Response
Improved Fire Protection System
Improved Plant Security
Modern Computers and Control Systems
Improved Plant Operability and Maintainability
Optimized Plant Maintenance Outages
Reduced Overall Project Schedule
Advanced MACSTOR Design for Spent Fuel Storage
Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR-1000)
The ACR-1000 represents the continuing evolution of CANDU design to match changing market conditions. ACR-1000 is the next-generation (officially, "Generation III+") CANDU technology from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), which maintains proven elements of existing CANDU design, while making some significant modifications:
compact fuel-channel design, generating over 50% more power than a conventional CANDU-6 reactor, with approximately the same overall core diameter;
improved thermal efficiency through higher-pressure steam turbines (13 MPa primary pressure; 7 MPa steam outlet pressure, vs. approximately 10 MPa and 5 MPa, respectively, in current designs);
pressurized light-water coolant;
negative coolant void reactivity;
reduction in used fuel production by over 30%;
greater thermal efficiency due to higher operating temperatures and pressures;
reduced use of heavy water (more than half, for the same power output), thus reducing cost and eliminating many material handling concerns;
use of slightly enriched uranium (about 2%) to extend fuel life to three times that of existing *natural uranium fuel (reducing fuel waste volume by two-thirds);
average channel power increased from roughly 6 MW (CANDU 6) to roughly 7 MW;
flatter neutron flux shape, allowing 14% lower peak fuel element ratings;
longer plant operational lifetime (60 years);
longer operating cycles between maintenance outages (3 years);
90% design capacity factor;
pre-stressed concrete containment (1.8 m thick) with steel liner; and
further additions to CANDU's inherent passive safety.
At the same time the basic and defining design features of CANDU are all maintained:
modular, horizontal fuel channel core;
heavy water moderation;
simple, economical fuel bundle;
separate, cool, low-pressure moderator with back-up heat sink capability;
two independent, fast-acting shutdown systems;
ability to perform long-term flux-shaping and failed fuel management through on-line refuelling.
It is expected that the capital cost of constructing these plants will be reduced by up to 40% compared to current CANDU 6 plants.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Candu'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://candu_reactor.totallyexplained.com">CANDU reactor Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |