Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The AP1000 design traces its history to two previous designs, the AP600 and the System 80.. The System 80 design was created by Combustion Engineering and featured a two-loop cooling system with a single steam generator paired with two reactor coolant pumps in each loop that makes it simpler and less expensive than systems which pair a single reactor coolant pump with a steam generator in each ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The Westinghouse SMR design is a scaled down version of the AP1000 reactor, designed to generate 225 MWe. After losing a second time in December 2013 for funding through the U.S. Department of Energy's SMR commercialization program, and citing "no customers" for SMR technology, Westinghouse announced in January 2014 that it is backing off from ...
The Hualong One power output will be 1170 MWe gross, 1090 MWe net, with a 60-year design life, and would use a combination of passive and active safety systems with a double containment. [5] It has a 177 assembly core design with an 18-month refuelling cycle. The power plant's utilisation rate is as high as 90%.
In June 2014, China First Heavy Industries completed the first domestically produced AP1000 reactor pressure vessel for the second AP1000 unit. [13] The units were originally projected to begin operation in 2014 and 2015. In April 2015, a start date of 2016 was projected for both. [14] One month later, the start date was put back to 2017.
A nuclear reactor core is the portion of a nuclear reactor containing the nuclear fuel components where the nuclear reactions take place and the heat is generated. [1] ...
The Russian VVER-1000 design is mostly the same as other modern PWRs in regards to containment, as it is a PWR itself. However, the VVER-440-type has a significantly more vulnerable containment, in the form of a so-called bubble condensor with relatively low design pressure.
The section describing fewer pumps, fewer moving parts does not qualify the comparison. The AP1000 design has 35% fewer pumps, THAN WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndytheSE (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Many common sources refer to the AP1000 as passively safe, yet I have heard differently.