Calculations for AP1000 nuclear power plant SGTR accident based on RELAP5/mod 3.3 program
AP1000 nuclear power plant model is founded via RELAP5/mod 3.3 program in detail. Refer to SGTR accident basic assumptions in the safety analysis report, calculations for AP1000 nuclear power plant SGTR accident are carried out. And through comparison between the result got and the result from safety analysis report calculated by LOFTTR2 program, the two results are very consistent. It's found that even if the operators do not interfere, AP1000 nuclear power plant protection systems and passive design measures will trigger an automatic response measures, it can terminate the SG heat transfer tube leaking and make RCS be stable in a safe condition and to prevent SG overflowing and ADS actions occurring.
Nuclear safety of spent fuel pool storage at nuclear power plants with VVER-1000: physical principles and structural solutions
The physical principles and structural solutions concerning nuclear safety in handling nuclear fuel at nuclear power plants with VVER-1000 are examined. It is shown that a structure of storage racks in the holding pools based on the spacing of hexahedral boron steel pipes, the structure acting as a combined neutron trap, will increase the pool capacity as compared with the loosely packed pools and will make the handling of nuclear fuel nuclear safe under normal operating conditions and during accidents. In the future, this construction will make it possible to use fuel assemblies with high uranium content and fuel enrichment above 5%.
Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya
Abstract Citizen participation in decision making has been widely lauded as a method for improving societal outcomes. Deliberative discussion, in particular, is believed to be more transformative than a mere aggregation of individual preferences, leading to more socially optimal decision making and behavior. I report the results from a laboratory experiment with 570 subjects in Nairobi, directly testing the effect of participation in deliberative group decision making on collective outcomes. Participants engage in a group task to earn compensation toward a shared group fund. Randomly assigned treatments vary according to whether decision making over the task to be completed involves: (1) external assignment; (2) non-deliberative majority voting; or (3) consensus through deliberative discussion. I find that deliberation improves collective decision making. Deliberation is also associated with changes in preferences, greater agreement with decision outcomes, and greater perceived fairness. Evidence for behavior change is weaker, but there is some support for further research into the relationship between preference change and behavior change.