NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE | FAST NEUTRON REACTORS


Next generation fast neutron reactors


We are running out of time to choose between good and bad in the power industry. Soon people will have to make a choice based on other criteria – between either extending the life of previous technologies or a new technology platform


THERE IS A GROWING UNDERSTANDING in the public consciousness that the consumption of hydrocarbon energy sources should be limited, as their combustion for energy production, including in transport, is one of the main contributers to environmental pollution (up to 75% of greenhouse gas emissions). Therefore, the transition to environmentally friendly energy sources in the coming decades is inevitable. In the past 20 years, power generation capacity has doubled and will probably triple by 2050. At the same time, reducing the scale of pollution is being discussed, but so far without noticeable results, - and positive results are unlikely while up to 85% of the energy production is based on fossil fuels. Rosatom State Corporation has adopted Strategy 2018,


according to which fast neutron reactors based on a closed nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) will become the basis of energy security and environmental safety. Moreover, and the Russian Foreign Ministry has identified the main tools to combat climate change as nuclear power, which will replace the burning of hydrocarbons, along with forestry projects that will ensure an increase in carbon dioxide absorption by forests. Addressing the Millennium Summit in 2000 at the UN,


Russian President Vladimir Putin drew attention to the fact that the sustainable development of mankind can rely on the nuclear power based on a new technological platform in energy terms. Today, Russia and China have already


made significant progress in this direction in research and development as well as their practical implementation. Recently, one of the most pressing current problems -


the provision of energy – has become a topic of serious discussion in the European media and on the Internet. Discussion have included gas prices, coal supplies, sanctions and the delay in commissioning the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline, and the inability of solar and wind energy sources to meet the energy needs of Europe. As yet, nuclear power is not included, although it is mentioned as a carbon-free energy source. At the same time, it continues to be considered dangerous, while fast neutron reactors based on a closed NFC are seen as unacceptable from the point of view of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, with concerns about the production of plutonium, and the possible worldwide spread of these technologies. However, the terms dangerous and unacceptable make sense only in comparison with some alternative. While it is possible to compare energy systems, it is also necessary to specify the comparison criteria – the cost of energy, fuel availability, environmental pollution, the impact on public health, the risk and consequences of accidents. It is important to consider the system as a whole, and not its separate elements. It is also necessary to consider what society will gain and what it will lose in choosing one or another energy source. Only after such a comparison and consideration can


any energy system be accepted or rejected. Currently, neither politicians nor society are looking to nuclear energy. However, solar and wind energy can no longer stand comparison even with conventional generation after they failed to provide Europe with energy last winter. Hydrocarbon energy systems lose in comparison with nuclear power with respect to environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, they have a higher risks of accident with significant loss of life. Therefore, if we agree that nuclear power is dangerous, just like any other industry with a high energy density, then we will have to admit that hydrocarbon energy systems are even more dangerous. And if nuclear power systems are considered bad, then all others are even worse. Yes, nuclear power has specific dangers associated with its birth – the creation of nuclear weapons. However, this is more a political problem than a technical one. In the final document of the Glasgow Climate Pact of the


Above: The BN-1200 fast neutron reactor 22 | September 2022 | www.neimagazine.com


UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), held in Glasgow from 31 October to 12 November, 2021, there is no explicit


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49