5.6 KiB
| authors | citekey | publish_date | journal | volume | pages | last_import | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
albertiAutomationLevelsNuclear2023 | 2023-03-01 | Progress in Nuclear Energy | 157 | 104559 | 2025-07-24 |
Indexing Information
Published: 2023-03
DOI 10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104559 #Small-modular-reactor, #Microreactor, #Advanced-sensors, #Artificial-intelligence, #Automation-levels, #Digital-twin, #Fission-battery, #Reduced-order-model
#ToRead
[!Abstract] This work serves to propose updated levels of automation for nuclear reactor operations, as a result of considering long-term economic and commercial ambitions of the advanced reactor developer community. As in other fields such as road-going vehicles and aviation, reactor technologies can benefit from modern automation through the resulting reduction in operations and maintenance costs, while still maintaining the current industry standards regarding safety, resilience, reliability, overall performance, and the capacity for root-cause analysis. The current guidelines on automation levels, as published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Section 9 of NUREG-0700, reflect outdated design principles that implicitly limit the potential of automation innovation for reactor operations, particularly in regard to advanced reactors intended to operate in remote locations or be used for off-grid applications. Motivated by the operational paradigms anticipated for future reactor designs, we propose a six-level approach that aligns with contemporary automation concepts as well as automation level definitions from other non-nuclear safety–critical industries. These levels build upon the current guidelines in order to enable next-generation nuclear reactor technologies to become increasingly economically competitive and commercially viable relative to competing power generation sources. Using a hypothetical heat removal reactor transient, we provide examples of how the human–machine interactions change at each level of automation, ranging from traditional operator control (Level 0) to operator-free unattended operations (Level 5)—the latter being one of the key attributes proposed at the Fission Battery Initiative led by Idaho National Laboratory. Finally, we critically examine the identified challenges, knowledge gaps, and enabling technologies to achieve advanced levels of automation.>[!seealso] Related Papers
Annotations
Notes
!Notes on Papers/Automation levels for nuclear reactor operations- A revised perspective.md
Highlights From Zotero
[!fail] This ain't right providing approximately 55% of all emissions-free electricity in the U.S. 2024-12-25 5:57 pm
[!fail] This ain't right complicated by the high up-front capital and financing costs and long construction times associated with bringing new power plants online. 2024-12-25 5:58 pm
[!fail] This ain't right Though effective and proven reliable, the analog technology employed at nuclear plants requires frequent surveillance, inspections, and testing 2024-12-25 6:01 pm
[!fail] This ain't right modern technology has now enabled differing degrees of automation and reduced O&M costs in nearly every industry across the globe. 2024-12-25 6:01 pm
[!fail] This ain't right have expressed interest in utilizing varying degrees of automation in their designs and operation 2024-12-25 6:03 pm
[!fail] This ain't right However, we find that if only these factors are considered, the current guidelines on automation levels do not align with long-term economic and commercial goals of the advanced reactor community—particularly in regard to the operational characteristics of FBs 2024-12-25 6:05 pm
[!fail] This ain't right ultimately rely on a human-in-the-loop to monitor plant performance and intervene when necessary. 2024-12-25 6:06 pm
[!fail] This ain't right The advent of novel SMRs, MRs, and targeted FB attributes has challenged many of the premises that underline the limitations of the levels of automation. 2024-12-25 6:09 pm
[!fail] This ain't right Unlike previous definitions of automation levels (Proud and Hart, 2005; Kaber and Endsley, 2003; O’Hara and Fleger, 2020; Billings, 1997; Sheridan, 2002), 2024-12-25 6:10 pm
[!fail] This ain't right Per these efforts, Table 3 reflects six levels of automation, ranging from purely manual (i.e., human driver) control to a fully automated, human-out-of-the-loop vehicle 2024-12-25 6:16 pm
[!fail] This ain't right from Level 3 to Level 4, at which point we observe a tipping point in automation, such that vehicles can be manufactured as autonomously operated machines, the classical interpretation of a driver’s seat is no longer required, and vehicle cabins can be radically redesigned to enhance passenger safety, comfort, and convenience. 2024-12-25 6:17 pm
[!fail] This ain't right In this section, we use the definitions and concepts presented in Section 2 to reformulate the current regulatory-accepted automation level guidelines (Table 1) in order to better support the ambitions of 2024-12-25 6:19 pm
[!fail] This ain't right the advanced reactor developer community. We do not intend for these levels to be prescriptive, but rather to provide a framework for future discussions and follow-on work. 2024-12-25 6:20 pm
[!fail] This ain't right Table 5 are not prescriptive for an entire reactor system, but rather a particular task or set of tasks; different tasks may be suited to different automation levels. 2024-12-25 6:47 pm