Possible Reactor Sites in the U'S'

1
Possible Reactor Sites in the U.S.
Jonathan Link Columbia University Workshop on
Future Low-Energy Neutrino Experiments April 30
- May 2, 2003
2
Best Performing U.S. Reactor Sites
Reactor sites ranked by product of their rated
capacity and their capacity factor averaged over
the last 6 years.
Single Reactor Sites
Two Reactor Sites
3
How Many Reactors

• The flux systematic do not cancel in the near/far
  ratio at sites with more than two reactors (or at
  least I dont see any easy way)
• The flux normalization is trivial with one
  reactor.
• With two reactor sites there are two scenarios
  that work.

1
2
Equidistant from both reactors does not require
reactor flux data.
(L1/L2)near(L1/L2)far requires flux data to
determine parameters in Dm2-sin22q space.
4
How Many Reactors (Continued)

• Reactor off time could be useful for measuring
  backgrounds
• Single reactor sites have full reactor off time.
  
• Multiple reactor sites typically refuel their
  reactors out of phase (i.e. no full reactor off
  running).
• There are other ways to get at background rates.
• (See my later talk)

5
Two Reactor Sites Around the World
U.S. 6 GW
Europe 6 GW
Asia From KamLAND

Estimated from electrical power
The highest peak power is in France and Germany,
there are acceptable sites in the U.S., but the
Japanese sites seem inadequate But capacity
factors are highest in the U.S. and slow and
steady wins the race!
6
Two Reactor Sites Around the World
Average thermal power for two reactor sites in
the year 2000.

• U.S. reactors are more competitive in integrated
  power.
• Why is this so?
• U.S. reactor are typically operated on an 18
  month cycle
• A 12 month cycle is more typical in other
  counties
• U.S. operators focus on speedy refueling
• This could be because the U.S. has less excess
  power in its system

Taken from list of top 50 generators. Upper
limit
7
South Texas Project, Texas 7.6 GW
8
Braidwood, Illinois 7.17 GW Excelon Nuclear
9
Byron, Illinois 7.17 GW Excelon Nuclear
10
Vogtle, Georgia 7.13 GW
11
Susquehanna, Pennsylvania 6.98 GW
12
La Salle, Illinois 6.98 GW Excelon Nuclear
13
Salem, Delaware 6.92 GW
14
Limerick, Pennsylvania 6.92 GW Excelon Nuclear
15
Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania 6.92 GW Excelon Nuclear
16
Comanche Peak, Texas 6.92 GW
17
Catawba, South Carolina 6.82 GW
18
U.S. Reactor Operator Concerns

• Profits
• If this project could negatively effect their
  bottom
• line they dont want to get involved.
• Is there any way for this project to add value
  for plant
• operators?
• Security (in a post-9/11 world)
• Having the near detector inside their security
• perimeter is a concern.
• Connecting the near and far detectors with a
  tunnel
• (creating an underground connection from an
• unsecure to a secure area) is a big concern

19
Conclusions

• This experiment can best be done at a two
  reactor site
• Single reactors are too small
• Multiple reactor sites dont allow precise flux
  normalization
• Many sites in the U.S. are comparable to the
  most powerful reactors in France and Germany in
  integrated power
• Convincing reactor operators to participate may
  be a challenge
• We may have to take what we can get

20
Wolf Creek Kansas
3.57 GW capacity
21
Optimal Baseline
With Dm2 2.510-3 the optimal region is quite
wide. In a configuration with tunnel connecting
the two detector sites, choose a far baseline
that gives you the shortest tunnel.