Possible Reactor Sites in the U.S.Possible Reactor Sites in the U.S.

Jonathan Link

Columbia University

Workshop on Future Low-Energy Neutrino Experiments

April 30 − May 2, 2003

Best Performing U.S. Reactor SitesBest Performing U.S. Reactor SitesReactor sites ranked by product of their rated capacity and their capacity factor averaged over the last 6 years.

Single Reactor Sites Two Reactor SitesReactor Site State Max MW th Avg MW th % of BestSouth Texas Project TX 7600.0 6908.4 100.0Vogtle GA 7130.0 6533.5 94.6Braidwood IL 7172.0 6434.5 93.1Byron IL 7172.0 6386.7 92.4Limerick PA 6916.0 6297.0 91.2Peach Bottom PA 6916.0 6261.3 90.6Sequoyah TN 6822.0 6195.5 89.7Susquehanna PA 6978.0 6144.1 88.9Diablo Canyon CA 6749.0 6104.9 88.4Catawba SC 6822.0 6021.0 87.2Comanche Peak TX 6916.0 6008.9 87.0San Onofre CA 6876.0 5971.2 86.4McGuire NC 6822.0 5868.6 84.9North Anna VA 5786.0 5246.9 76.0Edwin Hatch GA 5526.0 4885.0 70.7Calvert Cliffs MD 5400.0 4877.6 70.6St. Lucie FL 5400.0 4866.8 70.4

Reactor Site State Max MW th Avg MW th % of BestGrand Gulf MS 3833.0 3502.7 100.0Wolf Creek KS 3565.0 3226.3 92.1Callaway MO 3565.0 3203.2 91.4Perry OH 3758.0 3164.9 90.4Waterford LA 3390.0 3160.6 90.2Watts Bar TN 3411.0 3047.2 87.0Seabrook NH 3411.0 2885.7 82.4Hope Creek DE 3339.0 2733.5 78.0Fermi OH 3430.0 2686.8 76.7River Bend LA 3039.0 2613.5 74.6Columbia WA 3486.0 2466.9 70.4

How Many ReactorsHow Many ReactorsThe flux systematic do not cancel in the near/far ratio at sites with more than two reactors (or at least I don’t see any easy way)

• The flux normalization is trivial with one reactor.

• With two reactor sites there are two scenarios that work.

Equidistant from both reactors; does not require reactor flux data.

(L1/L2)near=(L1/L2)far; requires flux data to determine parameters in m2sin22 space.

1

2

How Many Reactors (Continued)How Many Reactors (Continued)

Reactor off time could be useful for measuring backgrounds

• Single reactor sites have full reactor off time.

• Multiple reactor sites typically refuel their reactors out of phase (i.e. no full reactor off running).

There are other ways to get at background rates.

(See my later talk)

Two Reactor Sites Around the WorldTwo Reactor Sites Around the World

Reactor Site State Max MW th Avg MW thSouth Texas Project TX 7600.0 6908.4Braidwood IL 7172.0 6434.5Byron IL 7172.0 6386.7Vogtle GA 7130.0 6533.5Susquehanna PA 6978.0 6144.1La Salle IL 6978.0 3972.8Salem DE 6918.0 3992.3Limerick PA 6916.0 6297.0Peach Bottom PA 6916.0 6261.3Comanche Peak TX 6916.0 6008.9San Onofre CA 6876.0 5971.2Sequoyah TN 6822.0 6195.5Catawba SC 6822.0 6021.0McGuire NC 6822.0 5868.6Diablo Canyon CA 6749.0 6104.9D.C. Cook MI 6661.0 2917.4Millstone CT 6111.0 2955.0Indian Point NY 6096.0 4262.9

U.S.U.S.≥ 6 GW

EuropeEurope≥ 6 GW

AsiaAsiaFrom KamLAND

The highest peak power is in France and Germany, there are acceptable sites in the U.S., but the Japanese sites seem inadequate

But capacity factors are highest in the U.S. and…slow and steady wins the race!

*

* Estimated from electrical power

Reactor Site Country Max MW thCivaux FR 9135Chooz FR 8872Ignalina Lithuania 8778Flamanville FR 8088Penly FR 8088St. Alban/St. Maurice FR 8082Belleville FR 7977Golfech FR 7977Nogent FR 7977Gundremmingen DE 7865Biblis DE 7388Isar DE 6985Philippsburg DE 6976Neckar DE 6452Asco Spain 6013Kalinin RU 5852

Reactor Site Country Total MWGundermmigen DE 7227.42Byron US 7150.50South Texas Project US 7119.58Chooz FR 7032.16Vogtle US 7015.90Isar DE 6981.08 *LaSalle US 6891.41Catawba US 6890.32 *Limerick US 6871.88 *Flamanville FR 6869.52 *Braidwood US 6818.26 *Comanche Peak US 6803.98Saquoyah US 6800.46 *McGuire US 6798.64 *Penly FR 6796.07 *Biblis DE 6744.28 *San Onofre US 6709.77 *Neckar DE 6345.72 *

Two Reactor Sites Around the WorldTwo Reactor Sites Around the WorldAverage thermal power for two reactor sites in the year 2000.

Taken from list of top 50 generators.* Upper limit

U.S. reactors are more competitive in integrated power.

Why is this so?

• U.S. reactor are typically operated on an 18 month cycle

• A 12 month cycle is more typical in other counties

• U.S. operators focus on speedy refueling

• This could be because the U.S. has less excess power in its system

South Texas Project, Texas 7.6 GWSouth Texas Project, Texas 7.6 GW

Braidwood, Illinois 7.17 GWBraidwood, Illinois 7.17 GWExcelon Nuclear

Byron, Illinois 7.17 GWByron, Illinois 7.17 GWExcelon Nuclear

Vogtle, Georgia 7.13 GWVogtle, Georgia 7.13 GW

Susquehanna, Pennsylvania 6.98 GWSusquehanna, Pennsylvania 6.98 GW

La Salle, Illinois 6.98 GWLa Salle, Illinois 6.98 GWExcelon Nuclear

Salem, Delaware 6.92 GWSalem, Delaware 6.92 GW

Limerick, Pennsylvania 6.92 GWLimerick, Pennsylvania 6.92 GWExcelon Nuclear

Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania 6.92 GWPeach Bottom, Pennsylvania 6.92 GWExcelon Nuclear

Comanche Peak, Texas 6.92 GWComanche Peak, Texas 6.92 GW

Catawba, South Carolina 6.82 GWCatawba, South Carolina 6.82 GW

U.S. Reactor Operator ConcernsU.S. Reactor Operator Concerns

1. Profits

If this project could negatively effect their bottom line they don’t want to get involved.

Is there any way for this project to add value for plantoperators?

2. Security (in a post-9/11 world)

Having the near detector inside their security perimeter is a concern.

Connecting the near and far detectors with a tunnel(creating an underground connection from an unsecure to a secure area) is a big concern

ConclusionsConclusions

• This experiment can best be done at a two reactor site

− Single reactors are too small

− Multiple reactor sites don’t allow precise flux normalization

• Many sites in the U.S. are comparable to the most powerful reactors in France and Germany in integrated power

• Convincing reactor operators to participate may be a challenge

− We may have to take what we can get

Wolf Creek KansasWolf Creek Kansas3.57 GW capacity

Optimal BaselineOptimal Baseline

6 GW and 3 Years

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

500 1000 1500 2000

Baseline (meters)

Sen

siti

vity

90%

CL

dm^2=5.0e-3

dm^2=2.5e-3

dm^2=1.0e-3

With m2 = 2.5×10-3 the optimal region is quite wide. In a configuration with tunnel connecting the two detector sites, choose a far baseline that gives you the shortest tunnel.