Passive nuclear safety describes reactor safety features that achieve safe shutdown without requiring operator action or powered electrical or electronic feedback, relying instead on natural physical forces such as gravity, buoyancy, pressure differences, and heat convection. Westinghouse's AP1000 design needs no operator action for seventy two hours after an accident, and General Electric's ESBWR needs none for three days after a loss of coolant, while pebble bed reactors use Doppler broadening so that rising fuel temperature automatically slows the fission rate, and molten salt reactor designs can drain fuel by gravity into dump tanks in an emergency. These designs mark an advance over older reactors, which depend mainly on active safety systems such as diesel powered pumps.
Facts
Classification
MaturityTRL 9: Actual System Proven in Operational Environment 1 Technology TypeReactor safety design approach 1 Connections
Uses Source
Source Passive nuclear safety - Wikipedia
Sources
1. Passive nuclear safety - Wikipedia
Introduction
a design approach for safety features, implemented in a nuclear reactor
Uses Source: Nuclear Power, Lead
Passive nuclear safety is a design approach for safety features, implemented in a nuclear reactor, that does not require any active intervention on the part of the operator or electrical/electronic feedback in order to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown state, in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow).
In Group: Generation IV and Advanced Concepts, Lead
Passive nuclear safety is a design approach for safety features, implemented in a nuclear reactor, that does not require any active intervention on the part of the operator or electrical/electronic feedback in order to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown state, in the event of a particular type of emergency (usually overheating resulting from a loss of coolant or loss of coolant flow).
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.