论文部分内容阅读
本文深入阐述和分析了岭澳核电站未来先进燃料管理的策略和思路以及岭澳核电站实施先进燃料管理与大亚湾核电站的不同点。分析了岭澳核电站在混装核燃料堆芯后(涵盖第2至5循环)的燃料管理过渡策略。深入分析和阐述了岭澳核电站未来先进燃料管理的可行性研究结果,以及(第6循环后)先进燃料管理具体策略。对比了1/4年度换料、18个月换料和24个月换料的优缺点和经济性。18个月换料虽有多方面的好处,但岭澳核电站的售电环境和电价模式都不同于大亚湾核电站。电网对岭澳核电站的限制更苛刻,追求多发电或超发电不是岭澳核电站的最佳选择。若岭澳核电站实施1/4年度换料,则可以扬长避短,既有很高的燃料经济性,又利于四台机组安排非夏季大修和尽量避免重叠大修。因此岭澳核电站实施1/4年度换料优点更加明显。
This paper elaborates and analyzes in depth the strategies and ideas for the future advanced fuel management of Ling Ao Nuclear Power Station and the difference between the implementation of advanced fuel management and the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station in Ling Ao Nuclear Power Station. The fuel management transition strategy of Ling Ao Nuclear Power Plant after mixing nuclear fuel cores (covering Cycle 2 to Cycle 5) was analyzed. In-depth analysis and elaboration of the feasibility study results of future advanced fuel management at Ling Ao Nuclear Power Station and the specific strategies of advanced fuel management (after the 6th cycle). Comparing the 1/4 annual refueling, 18 months refueling and 24 months refueling advantages and disadvantages and economy. Although the 18-month refueling has many benefits, the sales environment and electricity price of Ling’ao Nuclear Power Station are different from that of Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station. The grid has more stringent restrictions on Ling Ao Nuclear Power Station. It is not the best choice for Ling Ao Nuclear Power Station to pursue multi-generation or over-generation. If the Lingaoao Nuclear Plant implements the 1/4 year refueling, it can avoid weaknesses, which not only has high fuel economy, but also helps the four units arrange non-summer overhauls and try to avoid overlapping overhaul. Therefore, Ling Ao Nuclear Power Plant to implement the 1/4 year refueling advantages more pronounced.