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 SitesTwo 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 don’t see any easy way) The flux normalization is trivial with one reactor. With two reactor sites there are two scenarios that work. Equidistant from both reactors; does not require reactor flux data. (L 1 /L 2 ) near =(L 1 /L 2 ) far ; requires flux data to determine parameters in  m 2  sin 2 2  space. 1 2

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 GWEurope Asia From KamLAND 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! * * Estimated from electrical power

6. Two Reactor Sites Around the World Average thermal power for two reactor sites in the year 2000. Taken from list of top 50 generators. * Upper limit 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

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 1. Profits If this project could negatively effect their bottom line they don’t want to get involved. Is there any way for this project to add value for plant operators? 2. 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 don’t 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  m 2 = 2.5×10 -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.