Analysis of supercritical CO{sub 2} cycle control strategies and dynamic response for Generation IV Reactors.

The analysis of specific control strategies and dynamic behavior of the supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO{sub 2}) Brayton cycle has been extended to the two reactor types selected for continued development under the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative; namely, the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). Direct application of the standard S-CO{sub 2} recompression cycle to the VHTR was found to be challenging because of the mismatch in the temperature drop of the He gaseous reactor coolant through the He-to-CO{sub 2} reactor heat exchanger (RHX) versus the temperature rise of the CO{sub 2} through the RHX. The reference VHTR features a large temperature drop of 450 C between the assumed core outlet and inlet temperatures of 850 and 400 C, respectively. This large temperature difference is an essential feature of the VHTR enabling a lower He flow rate reducing the required core velocities and pressure drop. In contrast, the standard recompression S-CO{sub 2} cycle wants to operate with a temperature rise through the RHX of about 150 C reflecting the temperature drop as the CO{sub 2} expands from 20 MPa to 7.4 MPa in the turbine and the fact that the cycle is highly recuperatedmore » such that the CO{sub 2} entering the RHX is effectively preheated. Because of this mismatch, direct application of the standard recompression cycle results in a relatively poor cycle efficiency of 44.9%. However, two approaches have been identified by which the S-CO{sub 2} cycle can be successfully adapted to the VHTR and the benefits of the S-CO{sub 2} cycle, especially a significant gain in cycle efficiency, can be realized. The first approach involves the use of three separate cascaded S-CO{sub 2} cycles. Each S-CO{sub 2} cycle is coupled to the VHTR through its own He-to-CO{sub 2} RHX in which the He temperature is reduced by 150 C. The three respective cycles have efficiencies of 54, 50, and 44%, respectively, resulting in a net cycle efficiency of 49.3 %. The other approach involves reducing the minimum cycle pressure significantly below the critical pressure such that the temperature drop in the turbine is increased while the minimum cycle temperature is maintained above the critical temperature to prevent the formation of a liquid phase. The latter approach also involves the addition of a precooler and a third compressor before the main compressor to retain the benefits of compression near the critical point with the main compressor. For a minimum cycle pressure of 1 MPa, a cycle efficiency of 49.5% is achieved. Either approach opens up the door to applying the SCO{sub 2} cycle to the VHTR. In contrast, the SFR system typically has a core outlet-inlet temperature difference of about 150 C such that the standard recompression cycle is ideally suited for direct application to the SFR. The ANL Plant Dynamics Code has been modified for application to the VHTR and SFR when the reactor side dynamic behavior is calculated with another system level computer code such as SAS4A/SYSSYS-1 in the SFR case. The key modification involves modeling heat exchange in the RHX, accepting time dependent tabular input from the reactor code, and generating time dependent tabular input to the reactor code such that both the reactor and S-CO{sub 2} cycle sides can be calculated in a convergent iterative scheme. This approach retains the modeling benefits provided by the detailed reactor system level code and can be applied to any reactor system type incorporating a S-CO{sub 2} cycle. This approach was applied to the particular calculation of a scram scenario for a SFR in which the main and intermediate sodium pumps are not tripped and the generator is not disconnected from the electrical grid in order to enhance heat removal from the reactor system thereby enhancing the cooldown rate of the Na-to-CO{sub 2} RHX. The reactor side is calculated with SAS4A/SASSYS-1 while the S-CO{sub 2} cycle is calculated with the Plant Dynamics Code with a number of iterations over a timescale of 500 seconds. It is found that the RHX undergoes a maximum cooldown rate of {approx} -0.3 C/s. The Plant Dynamics Code was also modified to decrease its running time by replacing the compressible flow form of the momentum equation with an incompressible flow equation for use inside of the cooler or recuperators where the CO{sub 2} has a compressibility similar to that of a liquid. Appendices provide a quasi-static control strategy for a SFR as well as the self-adaptive linear function fitting algorithm developed to produce the tabular data for input to the reactor code and Plant Dynamics Code from the detailed output of the other code.« less