Years ago I used to work at a BWR-3 (Not Fukushima). Toward the end of the video, Mr. Baig discusses Boron. Whilst walking through the power plant, I recall my associate telling me that whatever you do, don't kick that valve. I asked why. He explained that the valve will "poison" the reactor with Sodium Pentaborate. Apparently, it was one of many safety features. I didn't kick it.
Great job, one more advantage you forgot to mention that in BWRs the reactor vessel and associated components operates at lower pressure compared to PWRs
I would love to do a video on that technology, however since its so new I would need to collaborate with GE-Hitachi to develop something together. Do you think a video like this would have value?
One big advantage of the BWR is their contol scheme, which allow for load following way better than most other nuclear units. Using steam voids and jet pumps they can move from 50% to 100% in 3+ hours. The power grid needs power plants with flexiblity like these. I'm happy to finially see a BWR in the SMR mix for this reason. The BWRX-300. Good video Osama!
Very interesting fact! I was not aware that they can go from 50% to 100% in 3 hours. In the SMR design, its probably gonna be a lot faster. I've heard the burn up for fuel (fuel economy) is the highest in BWR's as well
They could do it faster but they are limited to 15% per hour change by their tech spec's. PWR's have great difficulty maneuvering like this on a daily bases. PWR's are basically base load plants, BWR's can do both base load and load following.
@@OsamaBaig In the USA the 15% power ascension limit is a standard tech specification for fuel integrity. A gradual increase so linear heat rates don't exceed linear heat rate limits on the fuel, and the need to overcome the Xe-133 poisoning effects. A 15% limit is very usable on the power grid. Power demand changes on 4-5hr ramps both up and down.
You'd be on a poor load line that whole time and only achieve MOP. There a few of pattern adjustments and waiting for xenon buildup you'll have to endure to achieve RTP. Flowing from 100 to 50% is another story.@@OsamaBaig
These nuclear reactors operate at way to low a temperature to actually store power as heat and to low a temperature to be useful for industrial use. These reactors also have safety issues in that water has to be held at high pressure to get any efficiency in the system. Because of this danger expensive containment structures need to be built. Still without cooling pumping working after an accident hydrogen explosions are possible which can destroy even the strongest containment structures. Makes much more sense to use liquid metal or salt that does not have the hazards of high temp hight pressure water
A video on Gen 10th BWRX-300 would be interesting. some videos go into too much detail which becomes jargon for people who are not Nuclear engineers while some don't give enough detail.
Have you done a video on Darlington's planned BWRX-300? I think OPG is tagging it as Gen 3+ since it's not as advanced as currently out-of-reach Gen 4 reactor technology. Is it considered Gen 3+ because it's SMR combined with BWR?
love all your videos about nuclear power!!! Helps me tremedously while I try to demythify nuclear power rumors to the publics!!! Keep up the good work!
Thanks Aaron! Making this new series so that before our societies openly adopt new nuclear technologies, it would be valuable if they have access to high quality video content that explains current conventional nuclear reactor types. This would help them find more info, in case they want to do a quick google search
@@OsamaBaig Agreed - and not just find more info but have it presented in a way that is very clear and easy to understand. There are SO many misconceptions when it comes to nuclear power, and the best way around them is to get folks informed.
"Drying water" that sounds like such an oxymoron... I know I know, it's so that liquid water doesn't get into the steam lines. But wouldn't some of the steam condense along the way to the turbines anyways? I used to prefer BWR's for their simplicity in the elimination of the secondary loop. But the whole, insert control rods from the bottom up concept has me a little worried. Sure there hasn't been a case where they've failed to insert, or at least I don't think there's been one... But after all these nuclear disasters I would prefer a design which is as fool proof as possible and going with gravity as opposed to going against it at least eliminates one potential future failure mode.
There was an accident (serious) at PGE'S Humboldt Bay Unit# 3 on 7-17-1970 due to a loss of outside power. Backup power from a petroleum based unit failed due to a disconnected cable. A small propane generator that could not even power all the emergency instruments was all that remained to scram the control rods. More than 50% of the control and fuel rod channels were bent beyond allowances due to the dropping of a fuel bundle in 1965 which damaged the core support plate (hard). Now the ability to insert the control rods from below against gravity became a life or death issue.
BWR fuel assemblies are smaller than PWR. The picture you show of a PWR is not what is used in Western style PWRs (US, France, Asia). The BWR picture you had is actually 4 assemblies around a cruciform control blade. Also, the BWRX doesn't use recirc pumps so you can't vary power as your described.
Agreed. All these different technologies are just distracting people from what is important, causing further stagnation in an already frustratingly slow moving industry. I like hard statistical proof, which supports the use of BWR due to it's proven history, low-risk, simple design, and demonstrable cost effectiveness. GEH BWRX-300 is the future IMO, anything else is just noise, unless proven otherwise. It should could be standardized, modularized, and mass produced, which would lower OCC considerably leading to widespread acceptance of nuclear energy and humanity can finally be ushered into a true golden age.
The overall issue is that PWR's have proven to be generally more economical to build and operate than BWR's. That's why BWR's make up only a small portion of nuclear power plants in the world. Theory is great. Real world practical experience say that great theories don't always work well in the real world. Note that Westinghouse recently announced a 300 MW "modular" PWR based on the AP1000 design (and using some of the same components and controls). I think thats going to give the the recent GE 300 MW "modualr" BWR a run for its money. The AP1000 is the most successful modern large PWR design in the world. 6 have been built and I believe there are orders and letter of intents for at least a dozen more. Even the Chinese recently ordered more AP1000's over its home grown PWRs because they are working so well.
BWR's are less popular in the US for one primary reason: the spread of radioisotopes is far greater than with PWR's or CANDU reactors. In a PWR or CANDU, the reactor coolant is never allowed to leave the primary containment and Auxiliary Equipment buildings- at least not intentionally. Reactor coolant is pumped through the tube side of a steam generator, and the secondary loop water on the shell side of the steam generator is what gets boiled into steam to spin the turbine generator. As long as the heat exchange tubing in the steam generator isn't leaking, contamination of the secondary coolant with radioisotopes should be near zero, and thus radioisotope contamination of the equipment in the turbine hall is minimized. Repairs to the turbine can be accomplished without exposing workers to high levels of radiation. In a BWR, the reactor coolant loop is directly connected to the primary turbine, and this means that if the turbine casing ever needs to be opened to inspect or do repairs on the guts of the turbine, it's far more hazardous and expensive due to high levels of gamma-emitting radioisotopes. Even though reactor coolant water is continuously filtered and purifies by running it through resin-bed ion-exchange demineralizers, enough radioactive particulate matter makes it through, that BWR turbines eventually become many times more contaminated than PWR turbines.
Very good video. Can you elaborate more on this stuff. For example why does it only use a single loop? Could it use two loops? Is there any reason why PWR reactors don't use a single loop?
Great question. PWR reactors don't use a single loop since actual boiling doesn't take place inside the pressure vessel. Other components like pressurizers is where boiling takes place. Thus, instead of directly creating steam which goes directly to the turbine, it has to pass through Steam generators which can remove moisture and provide heat exchange between the circuits. However, there are 4th generation PWR design's which have the ability to directly produce steam (This is only possible through very high temperatures)
To me, as someone in the industry, I tend to find BWRs a bit archaic. They come with their own sets of problems, mainly contamination of the turbines. Blade maintenance has to be treated as hot, and sent for decontamination. There are many benifits with PWR primary/secondary plants, mainly keeping the primary cooling fluids in containment.
Yes Fissile sources emit neutrons. Think of it like "Yang" energy force, or fire. It ignites and starts the reaction. Fertile is the opposite, it needs to be ignited in order to produce a product that will emit neutrons
I still feel nervous when you use the coolant as a moderator. The thing you use to control the heat is responsible for causing the heat in the first place. Therefore it can never be "walk away" safe. The whole "using water" thing came from the US Navy because ... submarines. That's where the expertise came from for power reactors. The idea was to build them right on the coast and use scaled up Navy sub reactors. If it goes nuts, just dump a shed ton of water through it, it'll be fine. it's underwater, right? Oh... wait. An honestly dumb idea driven by money and not sense.
Good question. I believe the reactor vessel assembly has equipment at the top which acts like a steam generator and helps create that separation. However, It would be great if someone that is a BWR expert can comment on this
@@PU-239 clean water=no irradiated plumbing and turbines, which mean less need for shielding and special disposal, in fact the equipment could be reused later
@@UncleFester84 The steam systems are very clean tbh if you don't run the reactor with ALOT of fuel damage. Pretty much all the radiation in the turbine is nitrogen-16 with a 7 second half-life. After shutdown a BWR turbine can be serviced essentially like any other turbine..
@@PU-239 Only assuming no fuel cladding failures. Unfortunately, fuel rod cladding failures still occur (although at a lot less rate than in the past). Once the fuel rod cladding fails... some really nasty radionuclides get transported around the entire steam/condensate/feedwater system. Most older BWRs are modestly radioactively hot for the whole plant. PWR's are a lot cleaner. Note that I worked in nuclear power plants - and greatly prefer PWR's
Large amounts of boiling pressurized water is not safe. 3% fuel efficiency and 97% long lived waste is awful performance. Build salt and lead reactors instead. No pressurized core, and better fuel management, better overall efficiency. Water reactors are a thing of the past.
Please evaluate the nuclear accident of 7-17-1970 at PGE'S first BWR at Humboldt Bay near Eureka California. Operating between August 1963 and mid 1976. Two presentations of this accident on UA-cam "Humboldt Nuclear Accident" of 39min. video and 106min. radio interview. The nuclear operators log which I read of this accident in October of 1977 has been lost (Victor Dricks NRC pio). I believe based on evidence that the people in the area, especially the children at South Bay Elementary School 400yds. downwind, would have their lives cut short in a most horrible way. They would have had a better chance if told the truth by PGE, The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (hearing 7-22-1970) and POTUS Nixon. Perhaps this evil caused the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish that Congressional Committee in 1977. The National Archives failed a "foia" for the vital documents i.e. the operators log.
BWR are not the future, these are the past. And quite problematic past at that. Four explosions, five if Chernobyl is to be accounted. Their time is long gone, and further development of this concept has no practical sense. These reactors had their niche in 1970-1980s due to low cost of deployment, but nowadays they’re obsolete.
4:00 Nothing new here. The same is correct for RBMK and RBMKP reactors as well as MKER project, which are technically BWR as well. Projects were scrapped in favor of VVER and BN, because these economical benefits of direct boiling are repaid later with costs of maintenance and utilisation. Not mentioning that liquid metal cooling can provide the same benefits without having a timebomb filled with radioactive boiling water.
Years ago I used to work at a BWR-3 (Not Fukushima). Toward the end of the video, Mr. Baig discusses Boron. Whilst walking through the power plant, I recall my associate telling me that whatever you do, don't kick that valve. I asked why. He explained that the valve will "poison" the reactor with Sodium Pentaborate. Apparently, it was one of many safety features. I didn't kick it.
Great job, one more advantage you forgot to mention that in BWRs the reactor vessel and associated components operates at lower pressure compared to PWRs
Nice video. I'd love to see a followup on the ESBWR and BWRX-300, since the BWRX-300 is likely to actually get built, including in Canada.
I would love to do a video on that technology, however since its so new I would need to collaborate with GE-Hitachi to develop something together. Do you think a video like this would have value?
@@OsamaBaig Hmm... I'd like to see it, but it's your decision as to whether you want to collaborate with a company that's selling something.
One big advantage of the BWR is their contol scheme, which allow for load following way better than most other nuclear units. Using steam voids and jet pumps they can move from 50% to 100% in 3+ hours. The power grid needs power plants with flexiblity like these. I'm happy to finially see a BWR in the SMR mix for this reason. The BWRX-300. Good video Osama!
Very interesting fact! I was not aware that they can go from 50% to 100% in 3 hours. In the SMR design, its probably gonna be a lot faster. I've heard the burn up for fuel (fuel economy) is the highest in BWR's as well
They could do it faster but they are limited to 15% per hour change by their tech spec's. PWR's have great difficulty maneuvering like this on a daily bases. PWR's are basically base load plants, BWR's can do both base load and load following.
@@OsamaBaig In the USA the 15% power ascension limit is a standard tech specification for fuel integrity. A gradual increase so linear heat rates don't exceed linear heat rate limits on the fuel, and the need to overcome the Xe-133 poisoning effects. A 15% limit is very usable on the power grid. Power demand changes on 4-5hr ramps both up and down.
You'd be on a poor load line that whole time and only achieve MOP. There a few of pattern adjustments and waiting for xenon buildup you'll have to endure to achieve RTP. Flowing from 100 to 50% is another story.@@OsamaBaig
These nuclear reactors operate at way to low a temperature to actually store power as heat and to low a temperature to be useful for industrial use. These reactors also have safety issues in that water has to be held at high pressure to get any efficiency in the system. Because of this danger expensive containment structures need to be built. Still without cooling pumping working after an accident hydrogen explosions are possible which can destroy even the strongest containment structures. Makes much more sense to use liquid metal or salt that does not have the hazards of high temp hight pressure water
A video on Gen 10th BWRX-300 would be interesting. some videos go into too much detail which becomes jargon for people who are not Nuclear engineers while some don't give enough detail.
Have you done a video on Darlington's planned BWRX-300? I think OPG is tagging it as Gen 3+ since it's not as advanced as currently out-of-reach Gen 4 reactor technology. Is it considered Gen 3+ because it's SMR combined with BWR?
The only drawback of BWRs is that the water and the turbine becomes radioactive because the water comes in direct contact with the uranium.
Great Video Osama! So Educational.
Really interesting and well delivered presentation. Thank you.
Thanks Marcus! Glad you enjoyed the video
love all your videos about nuclear power!!! Helps me tremedously while I try to demythify nuclear power rumors to the publics!!! Keep up the good work!
Great simplification of the more conventional type reactors!
Thanks Aaron! Making this new series so that before our societies openly adopt new nuclear technologies, it would be valuable if they have access to high quality video content that explains current conventional nuclear reactor types. This would help them find more info, in case they want to do a quick google search
@@OsamaBaig Agreed - and not just find more info but have it presented in a way that is very clear and easy to understand. There are SO many misconceptions when it comes to nuclear power, and the best way around them is to get folks informed.
Superb. Ty
BWR's are indeed superb, thanks for watching Cucurigu!
"Drying water" that sounds like such an oxymoron... I know I know, it's so that liquid water doesn't get into the steam lines. But wouldn't some of the steam condense along the way to the turbines anyways?
I used to prefer BWR's for their simplicity in the elimination of the secondary loop. But the whole, insert control rods from the bottom up concept has me a little worried. Sure there hasn't been a case where they've failed to insert, or at least I don't think there's been one... But after all these nuclear disasters I would prefer a design which is as fool proof as possible and going with gravity as opposed to going against it at least eliminates one potential future failure mode.
There was an accident (serious) at PGE'S Humboldt Bay Unit# 3 on 7-17-1970 due to a loss of outside power. Backup power from a petroleum based unit failed due to a disconnected cable. A small propane generator that could not even power all the emergency instruments was all that remained to scram the control rods. More than 50% of the control and fuel rod channels were bent beyond allowances due to the dropping of a fuel bundle in 1965 which damaged the core support plate (hard). Now the ability to insert the control rods from below against gravity became a life or death issue.
Never would have thought boiling water had a backstory
Yes, these reactors are super cool. Advance versions are coming to Canada very soon Eggman
BWR fuel assemblies are smaller than PWR. The picture you show of a PWR is not what is used in Western style PWRs (US, France, Asia). The BWR picture you had is actually 4 assemblies around a cruciform control blade.
Also, the BWRX doesn't use recirc pumps so you can't vary power as your described.
If I were a nuclear student, I wouldn't mind missing a few lectures on reactors because Osama Baig's Channel will fill me on that 😋
Your presentation is fairly done considering the length.
Agreed. All these different technologies are just distracting people from what is important, causing further stagnation in an already frustratingly slow moving industry. I like hard statistical proof, which supports the use of BWR due to it's proven history, low-risk, simple design, and demonstrable cost effectiveness. GEH BWRX-300 is the future IMO, anything else is just noise, unless proven otherwise.
It should could be standardized, modularized, and mass produced, which would lower OCC considerably leading to widespread acceptance of nuclear energy and humanity can finally be ushered into a true golden age.
The overall issue is that PWR's have proven to be generally more economical to build and operate than BWR's. That's why BWR's make up only a small portion of nuclear power plants in the world. Theory is great. Real world practical experience say that great theories don't always work well in the real world.
Note that Westinghouse recently announced a 300 MW "modular" PWR based on the AP1000 design (and using some of the same components and controls). I think thats going to give the the recent GE 300 MW "modualr" BWR a run for its money.
The AP1000 is the most successful modern large PWR design in the world. 6 have been built and I believe there are orders and letter of intents for at least a dozen more. Even the Chinese recently ordered more AP1000's over its home grown PWRs because they are working so well.
Why they are less popular than pwr?there must be a reason for that. Also why conventional plants get water from river and don't use condenser.
BWR's are less popular in the US for one primary reason: the spread of radioisotopes is far greater than with PWR's or CANDU reactors. In a PWR or CANDU, the reactor coolant is never allowed to leave the primary containment and Auxiliary Equipment buildings- at least not intentionally. Reactor coolant is pumped through the tube side of a steam generator, and the secondary loop water on the shell side of the steam generator is what gets boiled into steam to spin the turbine generator. As long as the heat exchange tubing in the steam generator isn't leaking, contamination of the secondary coolant with radioisotopes should be near zero, and thus radioisotope contamination of the equipment in the turbine hall is minimized. Repairs to the turbine can be accomplished without exposing workers to high levels of radiation. In a BWR, the reactor coolant loop is directly connected to the primary turbine, and this means that if the turbine casing ever needs to be opened to inspect or do repairs on the guts of the turbine, it's far more hazardous and expensive due to high levels of gamma-emitting radioisotopes. Even though reactor coolant water is continuously filtered and purifies by running it through resin-bed ion-exchange demineralizers, enough radioactive particulate matter makes it through, that BWR turbines eventually become many times more contaminated than PWR turbines.
I wonder how radiolosis plays in bwrs or tritium formation?
great! We do the equipment development much more economy.
We will do iter asemblling as agreement.
I think you're wrong about the BWR fuel assembly being bigger than PWR assembly.
Very good video. Can you elaborate more on this stuff. For example why does it only use a single loop? Could it use two loops? Is there any reason why PWR reactors don't use a single loop?
Great question. PWR reactors don't use a single loop since actual boiling doesn't take place inside the pressure vessel. Other components like pressurizers is where boiling takes place. Thus, instead of directly creating steam which goes directly to the turbine, it has to pass through Steam generators which can remove moisture and provide heat exchange between the circuits. However, there are 4th generation PWR design's which have the ability to directly produce steam (This is only possible through very high temperatures)
To me, as someone in the industry, I tend to find BWRs a bit archaic. They come with their own sets of problems, mainly contamination of the turbines. Blade maintenance has to be treated as hot, and sent for decontamination. There are many benifits with PWR primary/secondary plants, mainly keeping the primary cooling fluids in containment.
Good video, interesting topic, but the "side face" lighting is distracting.
its the most unsafe reactor desin in terms of safety and radioactive leakage.
2 loops are for safety
Hello sir,
Can u explain little about fissile?
Yes Fissile sources emit neutrons. Think of it like "Yang" energy force, or fire. It ignites and starts the reaction. Fertile is the opposite, it needs to be ignited in order to produce a product that will emit neutrons
I still feel nervous when you use the coolant as a moderator. The thing you use to control the heat is responsible for causing the heat in the first place. Therefore it can never be "walk away" safe. The whole "using water" thing came from the US Navy because ... submarines. That's where the expertise came from for power reactors. The idea was to build them right on the coast and use scaled up Navy sub reactors. If it goes nuts, just dump a shed ton of water through it, it'll be fine. it's underwater, right? Oh... wait. An honestly dumb idea driven by money and not sense.
Wouldn't it be possible to separate the reactor water and the turbine water with a heat exchanger?
Good question. I believe the reactor vessel assembly has equipment at the top which acts like a steam generator and helps create that separation. However, It would be great if someone that is a BWR expert can comment on this
In theory I believe it is.
But why?
I don't see the benefit really..
@@PU-239 clean water=no irradiated plumbing and turbines, which mean less need for shielding and special disposal, in fact the equipment could be reused later
@@UncleFester84 The steam systems are very clean tbh if you don't run the reactor with ALOT of fuel damage.
Pretty much all the radiation in the turbine is nitrogen-16 with a 7 second half-life. After shutdown a BWR turbine can be serviced essentially like any other turbine..
@@PU-239 Only assuming no fuel cladding failures. Unfortunately, fuel rod cladding failures still occur (although at a lot less rate than in the past).
Once the fuel rod cladding fails... some really nasty radionuclides get transported around the entire steam/condensate/feedwater system. Most older BWRs are modestly radioactively hot for the whole plant.
PWR's are a lot cleaner. Note that I worked in nuclear power plants - and greatly prefer PWR's
BWRX-300 please
Hahaha yess Jordan!
Large amounts of boiling pressurized water is not safe. 3% fuel efficiency and 97% long lived waste is awful performance. Build salt and lead reactors instead. No pressurized core, and better fuel management, better overall efficiency. Water reactors are a thing of the past.
Please evaluate the nuclear accident of 7-17-1970 at PGE'S first BWR at Humboldt Bay near Eureka California. Operating between August 1963 and mid 1976. Two presentations of this accident on UA-cam "Humboldt Nuclear Accident" of 39min. video and 106min. radio interview. The nuclear operators log which I read of this accident in October of 1977 has been lost (Victor Dricks NRC pio).
I believe based on evidence that the people in the area, especially the children at South Bay Elementary School 400yds. downwind, would have their lives cut short in a most horrible way. They would have had a better chance if told the truth by PGE, The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (hearing 7-22-1970) and POTUS Nixon. Perhaps this evil caused the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish that Congressional Committee in 1977. The National Archives failed a "foia" for the vital documents i.e. the operators log.
As an Austrian, I am not sure if we should be mentioned at 1:34 xD!
Lopez Gary Clark Carol Lewis Linda
and nothing on its economics..
I would love to learn more about the economics behind a BWR as well
BWR are not the future, these are the past. And quite problematic past at that. Four explosions, five if Chernobyl is to be accounted. Their time is long gone, and further development of this concept has no practical sense. These reactors had their niche in 1970-1980s due to low cost of deployment, but nowadays they’re obsolete.
4:00 Nothing new here. The same is correct for RBMK and RBMKP reactors as well as MKER project, which are technically BWR as well. Projects were scrapped in favor of VVER and BN, because these economical benefits of direct boiling are repaid later with costs of maintenance and utilisation.
Not mentioning that liquid metal cooling can provide the same benefits without having a timebomb filled with radioactive boiling water.
lol your eyes are huge are u an anime girl?
Same name 😂
NO WAY! UA-cam TWINS :)
@@OsamaBaig 😂