Study shines a light on uranium mill tailings
05 June 2015
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Study-shines-a-light-on-uranium-mill-tailings-0506158.html
Areva Resources Canada and researchers at the University of
Saskatchewan have completed a major study on the long-term condition of
uranium mill tailings at the McClean Lake mill using the Canadian Light
Source (CLS) synchrotron facility.
 |
| McClean Lake (Image: University of Saskatchewan) |
Tailings - the waste from uranium ore milling operations - from McClean Lake are stored in the JEB tailings management facility, a former open pit mine. The management facility has been in operation since 1999, so drilling through the layers of material in the facility gives a snapshot of the tailings at different evolutionary stages.
Researchers used the CLS to investigate the life cycles of elements
such as lead, arsenic, and molybdenum via X-ray Absorption Near-Edge
Spectroscopy (XANES), a technique that can detect specific elements at
very low concentrations. University of Saskatchewan lead researcher
Andrew Grosvenor explained the approach. "We want to know how the
materials that contain these elements of concern are changing over time,
and if they reach a point where they form an insoluble product in which
case everything would stay put," he said.
The study has involved analysing 25 samples of tailings of different
ages and has for the first time succeeded in confirming the formation of
solid molybdenum materials that eventually stop the element dissolving
into water, as previously predicted by thermodynamic modelling.
McClean Lake is operated and 70%-owned by Areva Resources, with
Denison Mines holding 22.5% and Overseas Uranium Resources Development
(OURD) of Japan owning 7.5%. The mill produced over 50 million pounds of
concentrate from three open-pit mines from 1999 to 2010, and has since
been upgraded to mill ore from Cameco's Cigar Lake mine. It has been
described as the most technologically advanced uranium mill in the
world, able to process ore grades from less than 1% to 30% uranium
without dilution.
Based on current mining and milling projections, approximately 5
million cubic metres of tailings will be generated at the McClean Lake
Operation over the next 25 years, and will be stored in the JEB
facility.
The study's findings will be invaluable to the long-term care of the
McClean Lake site, and researchers are looking to move on to other
elements of concern. "Once you understand the geochemical reactions that
are occurring then you can start to predict what will be occurring over
the next 50, 100 or 1000 years in the environment," Grosvenor said.
The research has been published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
Uranium Markets
(Updated February 2015)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets/
- Production from world uranium mines now supplies over 90% of the requirements of power utilities.
- Primary production from mines is supplemented by secondary supplies, principally by ex-military material and other inventories.
- World mine production has expanded significantly since about 2005.
All mineral commodity markets tend to be cyclical, ie, prices rise
and fall substantially over the years, but with these fluctuations
superimposed on long-term trend decline in real prices, as technological
progress takes place at mines. In the uranium market, however, high
prices in the late 1970s gave way to depressed prices in the whole of
the period of the 1980s and 1990s, with spot prices below the cost of
production for all but the lowest cost mines. In 1996 spot prices
briefly recovered to the point where many mines could produce
profitably, but they then declined again and only started to recover
strongly late in 2003.
Nevertheless the quoted “spot prices" apply only to marginal trading
from day to day and in recent years have represented about one-quarter
of supply. Most trade is via 3-15 year term contracts with producers
selling directly to utilities. The contacted price in these contracts
is, however, often related to the spot price at the time of
delivery. However, as production has risen much faster than demand,
fewer long-term contracts are being written.
The reasons for fluctuation in mineral prices relate to demand and
perceptions of scarcity. The price cannot indefinitely stay below the
cost of production (see below), nor will it remain at very high levels
for longer than it takes for new producers to enter the market and
anxiety about supply to subside.
Graph courtesy of UxC
Note that the Euratom long-term price is the
average price of uranium delivered into the EU that year under long term
contracts. It is not the price at which long-term contracts are being
written in that year.
Demand
About 435 reactors with combined capacity of over 370 GWe, require
some 78,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate containing 66,000 tonnes
of uranium (tU) from mines (or the equivalent from stockpiles or
secondary sources) each year. This includes initial cores for new
reactors coming on line. The capacity is growing slowly, and at the same
time the reactors are being run more productively, with higher capacity
factors, and reactor power levels. However, these factors increasing
fuel demand are offset by a trend for increased efficiencies, so demand
is dampened – over the 20 years from 1970 there was a 25% reduction in
uranium demand per kWh output in Europe due to such improvements, which
continue today.
Each GWe of increased new capacity will require about 150 tU/yr of
extra mine production routinely, and about 300-450 tU for the first fuel
load.
Fuel burnup is measured in MW days per tonne U, and many utilities
are increasing the initial enrichment of their fuel (eg from 3.3 towards
5.0% U-235) and then burning it longer or harder to leave only 0.5%
U-235 in it (instead of twice this).
Source: Uranium Institute 1992
The graph from Sweden's Oskarsamn 3 reactor shows that with
increasing fuel burn-up from 35,000 to 55,000 MWd/t a constant amount of
uranium is required per unit of electrical output, and energy used
(indicated by SWU) for increased levels of enrichment increases
slightly. However, the amount of fabricated fuel used in the reactor
drops significantly due to its higher enrichment and burn-up.
In the USA, utilities have pursued higher enrichment and burnups, but
in addition have reduced the tails assay from enrichment, owing to
higher uranium prices, so that significantly less natural uranium feed
is required. However, more enrichment is then needed, so there is a
clear trade-off between energy input to enrichment and uranium input.
Because of the cost structure of nuclear power generation, with high
capital and low fuel costs, the demand for uranium fuel is much more
predictable than with probably any other mineral commodity. Once
reactors are built, it is very cost-effective to keep them running at
high capacity and for utilities to make any adjustments to load trends
by cutting back on fossil fuel use. Demand forecasts for uranium thus
depend largely on installed and operable capacity, regardless of
economic fluctuations.
Looking ten years ahead, the market is expected to grow significantly. The WNA 2013 Global Nuclear Fuel Market Report
reference scenario (post Fukushima accident) shows a 31% increase in
uranium demand over 2013-23 (for a 36% increase in reactor capacity –
many new cores will be required). Demand thereafter will depend on new
plant being built and the rate at which older plant is retired – the
reference scenario has a 25.6% increase in uranium demand for the decade
2020 to 2030. Licensing of plant lifetime extensions and the economic
attractiveness of continued operation of older reactors are critical
factors in the medium-term uranium market. However, with electricity
demand by 2030 expected (by the OECD's International Energy Agency,
2008) to double from that of 2004, there is plenty of scope for growth
in nuclear capacity in a world concerned with limiting carbon emissions.
Supply
Mines in 2013 supplied some 70,800 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) containing 59,370 tU, about 91% of utilities' annual requirements. (See also paper World Uranium Mining).
The balance is made up from secondary sources including stockpiled
uranium held by utilities, and in the last few years of low prices those
civil stockpiles have been built up again following their depletion
about 1990-2005. At the end of 2013 they were estimated at more than
90,000 tU in Europe and USA, and a bit less in east Asia, mostly in
China.
The perception of imminent scarcity drove the "spot price" for uncontracted sales to over US$ 100 per pound U3O8
in 2007 but it has settled back to $34-45 over the two years to the end
of 2014. Most uranium however is supplied under long-term contracts and
the prices in new contracts have, in the past, reflected a premium of
at lease $10/lb above the spot market.
Note that at the prices which utilities are likely to be paying for
current delivery, only one third of the cost of the fuel loaded into a
nuclear reactor is the actual ex-mine (or other) supply. The balance is
mostly the cost of enrichment and fuel fabrication, with a small element
for uranium conversion.
The above graph, from CRU Strategies, shows a cost curve for world
uranium producers in 2010, and suggests that for 53,500 tU/yr production
from mines in that year, US$40/lb is a marginal price. The cost curve
may rise steeply at higher uranium requirements in 2012 (with production
of 58,344 tU, 68,805 t U3O8).
With the main growth in uranium demand being in Russia and China, it
is noteworthy that the vertically-integrated sovereign nuclear
industries in these countries (and potentially India) have sought equity
in uranium mines abroad, bypassing the market to some extent. Strategic
investment in uranium production, even if it is not lowest-cost, has
become the priority while world prices have been generally low. Russia’s
ARMZ has bought Canada-based Uranium One, with 2013 production of over
5000 tU in several countries, and China’s CGNPC-URC has bought a
majority share of the large Husab project in Namibia, with potential
production of 5770 tU/yr (some to be sold into world markets). China’s
SinoU (CNNC) has bought a 25% share in Langer Heinrich in Namibia,
giving it over 500 tU/yr. It also has 37.5% of the SOMINA joint venture
in Niger, entitling it to over 1800 tU/yr in future, and up to 49% of
Zhalpak JV in Kazakhstan, adding another 500 tU/yr.
Supply from elsewhere
As well as existing and likely new mines, nuclear fuel supply may be from secondary sources including:
- recycled uranium and plutonium from used fuel, as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel,
- re-enriched depleted uranium tails,
- ex-military weapons-grade uranium,
- civil stockpiles,
- ex-military weapons-grade plutonium, as MOX fuel.
Commercial reprocessing plants are operating in France and UK, and
another is due to start up in Japan. The product from these re-enters
the fuel cycle and is fabricated into fresh mixed oxide (MOX) fuel
elements. About 200 tonnes of MOX is used each year, equivalent to less
than 2000 tonnes of U3O8 from mines.
Military uranium for weapons is enriched to much higher levels than
that for the civil fuel cycle. Weapons-grade is about 97% U-235, and
this can be diluted about 25:1 with depleted uranium (or 30:1 with
enriched depleted uranium) to reduce it to about 4%, suitable for use in
a power reactor. From 1999 to 2013 the dilution of 30 tonnes per year
of such material displaced about 9720 tonnes U3O8 per year of mine production. (see also paper on Military Warheads as a source of Nuclear Fuel).
The following graph gives an historical perspective, showing how
early production went first into military inventories and then, in the
early 1980s, into civil stockpiles. It is this early production which
has made up the shortfall in supply from mines since the mid 1980s.
However, the shortfall is diminishing towards the level of continuing
secondary supplies.
The USA and Russia have agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each of
military plutonium by 2014. Most of it is likely to be used as feed for
MOX plants, to make about 1500 tonnes of MOX fuel which will
progressively be burned in civil reactors.
The following graph (WNA 2011 Market Report reference scenario)
suggests how these various sources of supply might look in the decades
ahead:
Sources:
WNA Global Nuclear Fuel Market Reports.
IEA World Energy Outlook – to date.
WNA Global Nuclear Fuel Market Reports.
IEA World Energy Outlook – to date.
Uranium production figures, 2003-2013
(December 2014)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/Uranium-production-figures/
| Country or area | Production (tU) | % change | ||||||||||
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012-13 | |
| Argentina |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Australia |
7572
|
8982
|
9516
|
7593
|
8611
|
8430
|
7982
|
5900
|
5983
|
6991
|
6350
|
-9
|
| Belgium |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Brazil |
310
|
300
|
110
|
190
|
299
|
330
|
345
|
148
|
265
|
231
|
198
|
-17
|
| Bulgaria |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Canada |
10,457
|
11,597
|
11,628
|
9862
|
9476
|
9000
|
10,173
|
9873
|
9145
|
8998
|
9332
|
+4
|
| China ^ |
750
|
750
|
750
|
750
|
712
|
769
|
750
|
827
|
885
|
1500
|
1450
|
-3
|
| Czech Rep |
452
|
412
|
408
|
359
|
306
|
263
|
258
|
254
|
229
|
228
|
225
|
+1
|
| Finland |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| France |
9
|
7
|
7
|
0
|
4
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
0
|
-100
|
| Germany |
104*
|
77*
|
94*
|
65*
|
41*
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
52
|
50
|
27
|
-46
|
| Hungary |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| India^ |
230
|
230
|
230
|
230
|
270
|
271
|
290
|
400
|
400
|
385
|
400
|
+4
|
| Japan |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Kazakhstan |
3300
|
3719
|
4357
|
5279
|
6637
|
8521
|
14,020
|
17,803
|
19,451
|
21,317
|
22,567
|
+6
|
| Korea, S |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Lithuania |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Malawi |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
104
|
670
|
846
|
1101
|
1132
|
+3
|
| Mexico |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Namibia |
2036
|
3038
|
3147
|
3077
|
2879
|
4366
|
4626
|
4496
|
3258
|
4495
|
4315
|
-4
|
| Netherlands |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Niger |
3143
|
3282
|
3093
|
3434
|
3135
|
3032
|
3243
|
4198
|
4351
|
4667
|
4528
|
-3
|
| Pakistan^ |
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
50
|
45
|
45
|
45
|
41
|
-9
|
| Portugal |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Romania^ |
90
|
90
|
90
|
90
|
77
|
77
|
75
|
77
|
77
|
90
|
80
|
-11
|
| Russia^ |
3150
|
3200
|
3431
|
3430
|
3413
|
3521
|
3564
|
3562
|
2993
|
2872
|
3135
|
+9
|
| Slovakia |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Slovenia |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| South Africa |
758
|
755
|
674
|
534
|
539
|
655
|
563
|
583
|
582
|
465
|
540
|
+16
|
| Spain |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Sweden |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Switzerland |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| UK |
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Ukraine^ |
800
|
800
|
800
|
800
|
846
|
800
|
840
|
850
|
890
|
960
|
1075
|
+12
|
| USA |
779
|
878
|
1039
|
1692
|
1654
|
1430
|
1453
|
1660
|
1537
|
1596
|
1835
|
+15
|
| Uzbekistan |
1589
|
2016
|
2300
|
2270
|
2320
|
2338
|
2429
|
2400
|
3000
|
2400
|
2400
|
-20
|
| Total |
35,576
|
40,178
|
41,179
|
39,670
|
41,282
|
43,853
|
50,772
|
53,663
|
53,494
|
58,344
|
59,673
|
+2
|
| Legend | |||||||||
| na | not applicable | ||||||||
| .. | not yet available | ||||||||
| * | from decommissioning | ||||||||
| ^ | UI/WNA estimate | ||||||||
Commissioning nuclear in Australia? A call to action
5 June 2015
http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinioncommissioning-nuclear-in-australia-a-call-to-action-4594192/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Commissioning nuclear in Australia? A call to action
The
World Nuclear Association calls on the global nuclear community to
share its expertise with the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission
so that it can plot a path for civil nuclear power. By Agneta Rising
It
is only natural that Australia should consider an expanded role in the
nuclear fuel cycle as it attempts to address its climate, energy and
economic challenges. The country already has one of the most advanced
nuclear research and medical facilities in the world and it is one of
the largest suppliers of uranium. However, Australia currently makes no
use of nuclear to generate electricity - in fact, it has laws in place
prohibiting this. Most other civil nuclear fuel cycle activities are
banned under law.
[Photo: Olympic Dam (Credit: BHP Billiton]
A
Royal Commission into expanding nuclear fuel cycle activities is a
chance to move on. The Commission is limited to investigating the
opportunity for economic nuclear development in the state of South
Australia, but in practice anything beyond further mining would require
change at the national level. These kinds of opportunities come along
very rarely. The South Australian Royal Commission offers nuclear
industry professionals worldwide a chance to showcase their knowledge,
expertise, experience and technology.
The Commission has released four 'Issues Papers' on:
1) uranium exploration, extraction and milling (comments by 24 July);
2) fuel conversion, enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing (3 August);
3) electricity generation(3 August);
4) waste management (24 July).
1) uranium exploration, extraction and milling (comments by 24 July);
2) fuel conversion, enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing (3 August);
3) electricity generation(3 August);
4) waste management (24 July).
Should
the South Australian government choose to expand South Australia's
nuclear role, those who make high quality submissions may find
opportunities in an exciting new market.
Nuclear energy in Australia - recent history
The
anti-nuclear movement in Australia has been very influential. This led
to a national prohibition on fuel fabrication, nuclear power, enrichment
and reprocessing facilities, as set out in the federal Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 and Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act of 1998. In the late 1970s
it also led to the federal Australian Labor Party limiting uranium
mining and export.
"Half of South Australia's 5.3GWe capacity is gas-fired"
The
question of whether Australia should develop nuclear energy has been
raised several times over the last 60 years, usually by conservative
politicians (represented by the Liberal Party of Australia). The country
has abundant coal close to population centres, and by using this for
more than 80% of electricity it has enjoyed some of the world's lowest
power prices. But climate change concerns have changed the outlook, and
South Australia has always been less well-off than the eastern states in
terms of electricity options. Half of South Australia's 5.3GWe capacity
is gas-fired, and its average wholesale power price is 30% higher than
in the eastern states.
A previous Liberal coalition federal
government commissioned a high-level inquiry into nuclear energy and it
reported positively in 2006 (the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear
Energy Review, UMPNER). It concluded that any long-term energy strategy
for Australia should include nuclear alongside coal, gas and renewable
energy, and that commercial opportunities existed in uranium mining,
processing and enrichment and in waste storage. Much has changed since
then, notably the uranium price. UMPNER chairman Dr Ziggy Switkowski
said that the Royal Commission inquiry was "timely for a number of
reasons" and that "nuclear power still offers the greatest option in
providing cost-effective, clean, base-load energy".
Dr Switkowski
noted that "Australia, especially South Australia, will tick many boxes
required for a vibrant nuclear industry: a leader in the nuclear
nonproliferation regime, benign and sparsely populated geology, more
than a third of the world's known uranium resources with established
international markets, skilled workforce and experience in the nuclear
supply chain, effective regulators and strong compliance ethos, support
for industry development, job creation, and new intrastate commerce and
export opportunities."
Nuclear plants in Australia?
Around
1960, nuclear power was considered for the large new power station at
Port Augusta in South Australia, and in 1969 the South Australian
government proposed a nuclear power plant in the state to supply the
eastern states' grid.
"In 1976, the South Australian government...said nuclear power appeared inevitable"
In
1976, the South Australian government, in its submission to the Ranger
Uranium Mine Inquiry, said nuclear power appeared inevitable for the
state, perhaps by 2000. History proved different.
The 2006 UMPNER
inquiry reported that nuclear power would be 20-50% more expensive than
coal-fired power at that time and it would only be competitive if "low
to moderate" costs (US$12-30/tCO2) were imposed on carbon emissions. It
said: "Nuclear power is the least-cost low-emission technology that can
provide base-load power" and has low life cycle impacts. Since then,
household power prices have doubled.
The National Generators Forum
published a report in 2006 (Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Power Generation) which concluded: "Stabilising emissions at present
levels and meeting base-load requirements could be achieved with nuclear
power at comparatively modest cost." Nuclear power would halve an
expected increase in electricity prices of 120% to 2050 and "At $20 per
tonne of CO2 price, nuclear starts to become more cost-effective than
current fossil fuel technologies."
Whether nuclear power is
feasible for Australia therefore depends on climate mitigation policies,
on reducing coal or on a carbon price. Absent this, a more innovative
approach will be needed to secure financing.
Enrichment possibilities
Back
in the 1960s Australia started an enrichment research programme. The
feasibility of an enrichment industry was investigated in the 1970s but
work was never taken forward, in part due to the Labor party policy
noted above. Nevertheless, the country boasts some serious credentials
in the area and has pioneered research into new enrichment technology.
An
Australian company started to develop a laser-based uranium enrichment
technology in the mid-1990s. In 2006 it entered into an exclusive
agreement with an international partner to commercialise the technology.
In 2012 Global Laser Enrichment, as the enterprise is now known,
received an operating licence from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and in 2013 it began exclusive negotiations with US Department of
Energy for a tails processing facility.
Whether enrichment, and especially laser enrichment, could be a future option for Australia is surely an open question.
Nuclear waste considerations
Like
all countries with a nuclear research and medical sector, Australia has
its share of radioactive waste. A national initiative was launched last
year seeking land-owner volunteers to step forward with potential sites
for facilities to store intermediate-level waste, and for the disposal
of low-level waste. Australia does not technically have any high-level
waste. Its research reactor spent fuel is reprocessed abroad and the
returned waste is classified as long-lived intermediate-level waste.
"A
major research programme carried out in the 1990s to identify a
suitable site for a potential multinational repository put Australia top
of the list"
Nuclear power plants would change that equation.
They would require a high-level waste repository, but could also help to
subsidise the disposal of the comparatively small volume of medical and
research waste.
There has never been serious consideration of a
commercial reprocessing facility in Australia. However if nuclear power
plants were introduced the question of whether to pursue a closed or
open fuel cycle would have to be addressed.
A major research
programme carried out in the 1990s to identify a suitable site for a
potential multinational repository, Pangaea Resources, put Australia top
of the list. However the proposal was unpopular and did not proceed.
Whether attitudes have changed could be a question for the Commission.
An advanced proposal
One
South Australian has not been shy in seeking to shape the debate.
Senator Sean Edwards proposes "that South Australia stakes its claim in
the global nuclear fuel recycling industry." It would mean using the
world's spent fuel for fast reactors, via a reprocessing plant. The
venture would be supported financially because overseas governments
would pay South Australia to take their fuel.
On the ABC
Environment blog on 18 March, Edwards said, "In developing this proposal
I have been in talks with potential foreign partners who have raised
the possibility of meeting our capital costs if we meet their recycling
needs. Read: no start-up costs. Those talks continue."
Continuous,
reliable low-cost electricity would transform the state's economy.
After processing and reuse of fuel, small amounts of relatively
short-lived waste would remain. "The science is sound, the business case
has been made and the public is behind us. The challenge is a political
one," notes Edwards. There has been remarkably little pushback on this
proposal.
The Commission is keeping an open mind regarding
outcomes and is seeking to identify the pathway offering the most
potential for economic rejuvenation to the state. However, it does raise
intriguing questions as to exactly what kind of technology a nuclear
newcomer might realistically expect to introduce. Is there a possibility
to skip a generation? What are the benefits and risks of early
adoption?
Public opinion shift
The time appears right for a
new investigation and a Royal Commission is the most powerful and
rigorous body that can be created under Australian law to deal with such
a matter.
Public attitudes have begun to shift, making a national
policy change achievable. In 2014, a polling of 1200 people carried out
by the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy found that 48% of
respondents support nuclear energy, while only 33% recorded any form of
opposition. Just under 20% were neutral. These levels of acceptance are
enviable, even for countries with nuclear energy and a clear basis to
explore opportunities.
It will take a lot to change political
inertia in Australia, but your expert response to the Issues Papers is a
great starting point. Get involved, and help make a difference!About the author
Agneta Rising is Director General of the World Nuclear Association.
Russia achieves serial nuclear power plant construction
03 June 2015
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Russia-achieves-serial-nuclear-power-plant-construction-03061502.html
Russia has increased its competitive edge in the nuclear
plant construction market through the serial production of new reactors,
the head of NIAEP-JSC ASE said yesterday. The company was formed in
2012 from the merger of Rosatom subsidiaries Nizhny Novgorod design
institute and Atomstroyexport in order to consolidate Russia's nuclear
power engineering expertise into a single division. Last year, it
absorbed Atomenergoproekt.
NIAEP-JSC ASE director Valery Limarenko spoke to reporters in Moscow
during Atomexpo, Rosatom's annual conference and exhibition.
"Something we have and no one else does is that we have learned to
replicate nuclear power plants," Limarenko said. "Ask anyone else at
this exhibition involved in nuclear power plant construction or
operation if it is possible to build the same project in different
countries. They will tell you that it isn't because a unit is
tailor-made for each client."
Limarenko was referring to the different requirements among plant
customers regarding seismicity, climate, water temperature, design
regulations, localisation and investment.
"Serial production of nuclear power plants for construction around
the world is a very difficult thing to do, but we have managed it
because we are building a series of standard designs with various
options covering seismicity, climate and the other parameters. Our
competitive ability is very high because a company that can build a
series of projects, has a very strong position on the market," he said.
NIAEP-JSC ASE consists of more than 20 entities, Limarenko said, with
the major players being Atomstroyexport, which specialises in the
construction of overseas nuclear power plants; NIAEP, which builds units
in Russia; and general design company Moscow Atomenergoproekt. It also
includes engineering company Spetzenergomontazh and Nikimt-Atomstroy,
which designs and builds used nuclear fuel facilities.
The enlarged company employs 18,500 people at its Moscow and Nizhny
Novgorod offices, of which 4000 are nuclear power plant designers.
Five victories
The company had five "victories", or highlights, last year, he
said. The first was the start-up of unit 3 of the Rostov nuclear power
plant near Volgodonsk in Russia two months ahead of schedule, in
December. The same month, unit 1 of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant
entered commercial operation. The third victory was the signing, also in
December, of an intergovernmental agreement for Russia to build two new
reactors in India. The fourth was the signing in November of a protocol
to an intergovernmental agreement to build two new reactors in Iran. In
December, Russia also signed a contract for the Paks Phase 2 project in
Hungary.
NIAEP-JSC ASE had a portfolio in 2014 worth about $60 billion and it plans to beat that figure in 2015, Limarenko said.
Thanks to its formation from other Rosatom subsidiaries, the company
has all the structures required to design, construct and manage all the
processes related to procurement and supply, he said. This year, it will
further update its project management process with an information
support system known as Multi-D. Rosatom has said that this technology
enables it to carry out detailed modelling of construction and
installation processes based on 3D-object models, which "significantly
increases" the quality and speed of its work.
NIAEP-JSC ASE is able to remain within or below the budget of its
projects, Limarenko said, thanks to its cost management system. "Similar
to what designers do when they draw a 3D model of a nuclear power
plant, a so-called smart model, we create a similar model in terms of
costs," he said. "It is a mathematical model that is not static, but can
be developed over time to consider several factors. With the breakdown
of labour costs, price of equipment and price of materials, we know how
much we have spent and how much we are going to spend at any moment.
This system enables us to determine how much a project costs in any
country with a link to a specific project and a particular place."
This year
Key tasks for this year, according to Limarenko, are
commissioning of "the world's first" Generation III+ reactor - unit 1 of
the Novovoronezh II plant. Next, it aims to commission unit 2 of the
Kudankulam nuclear power plant, a Generation III project, he said. The
third task will be to sign a general contract in Bangladesh where the
company has already signed contracts covering the reactor design and the
preparatory period of work.
NIAEP-JSC ASE is on schedule with unit 1 of the plant it is building
at Ostrovets in Belarus, he said, and unit 2 there will be ahead of
schedule. That project is also below budget, he added. This Generation
III+ design is also being used for its Leningrad II and Baltic projects,
he said. It will also be used for the Hanhikivi and Paks projects in
Finland and Hungary, respectively, as well as for the plant it plans to
build for Vietnam, he said.
Asked about progress at unit 1 of the Kudankulam plant, Limerenko
said the reactor was now operating at 67% of its capacity, while unit 2
has entered the commissioning phase. In addition, India and Russia last
year signed an agreement to build units 3 and 4.
"Now we are in negotiations about the design contract for units 3 and
4, which we expect to sign in the next couple of months," he said.
These units will be of the VVER-Toi (typical optimised, with enhanced
information) design, which will require a four-year construction period
between first concrete and commissioning, he said. Other projects that
will use VVER-Toi technology include Kursk II in Russia and Akkuyu in
Turkey, he added.
NIAEP-JSC ASE has completed the requirements of the first two
contracts for its project in Bangladesh, he said, an engineering survey
and the design of the reactor. A third contract will cover the
preparatory period before the start of construction.
"I was at the site a month ago and talked with the [Bangladesh]
energy minister and we evaluated that everything was going well,"
Limarenko said.
Asked about the equipment prepared for an Atomstroyexport project the
Bulgarian government cancelled in 2012, Limeranko said "I hope the day
will come when we get to complete the Belene plant". The main equipment
of the nuclear island is ready and is currently in storage. "It's in a
normal condition and in reliable hands.”
Limarenko said he was optimistic about the company's prospects in Iran.
Unit 1 at the Bushehr nuclear power plant is a VVER V-446 pressurised
water reactor unit, which began commercial operation in September 2013.
German constructor Siemens KWU began work on two pressurized water
reactors at the Bushehr site on the Persian Gulf in 1975, but work was
abandoned in 1979. Russian companies later completed the project.
Construction of unit 2, a VVER-1000 reactor, is to start this year.
Unit 1 is currently in a two-year warranty period, during which
Russian nuclear specialists remain at the site on a consultative basis
and to provide technical support. That period ends soon, Limarenko said,
"and we are planning the handover in September". NIAEP-JSC ASE is now
carrying out general survey works for units 2, 3 and 4, he said,
referring to an agreement signed in November last year for Russia to
build up to eight new nuclear power reactor units in Iran - four at
Bushehr and four at another, yet to be determined site.
Asked about the potential impact on the projects of the P5+1 talks
with Iran on the country's nuclear program, Limarenko said he expected
sanctions against the country to be lifted soon.
"As I understand it, these talks have been very tough, but are
developing to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved to support
Iran in its pursuit of the peaceful atom," he said. We expect that
after the end of the talks, all sanctions [against Iran] will be lifted
and our cooperation in nuclear power plant construction in Iran will
continue. We have the framework of an existing contract."
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
by World Nuclear News
The realities of Mo-99 production
27 May 2015
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-The-realities-of-Mo-99-production-27051502.html
Reviews of the various molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) production
initiatives currently under way in the USA and Canada tend either to
ignore or to reference vaguely the important role of existing capacity
in Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and South Africa in the supply of
Mo-99 to the USA, writes Don Robertson.
The sweeping statement that the USA currently imports the majority of
its Mo-99 supply from "subsidised, aging facilities abroad most of
which is produced with HEU" is most certainly not a fair or reasonable
description of the Mo-99 industry in the rest of the world. If it were
not for these alleged subsidised, aging, HEU based facilities abroad
then, for example the USA would be without Mo-99 during the annual
extended NRU (National Research Universal, in Canada) shutdowns.
Proclamations of the virtues of various production processes that are
under development lack realism when it comes to projected time scales
and costs associated with the construction and licensing of these
proposed Mo-99 production facilities. In the early attempts to establish
domestic production in the USA, the National Nuclear Security
Administration Global Threat Reduction Initiative put forward a program
which was aimed at identifying and supporting Collaborative Agreement
partners. In terms of the program, these partners were required to
produce 3000 6 day Curies of LEU-based Mo-99 by the end of 2013. None of
the partners were able to achieve this target and this is still the
case some two years later.
“Technetium-99m has become a trivially priced low
value commodity with there being no correlation between the market price
and the true cost of production.”
Don Robertson
Don Robertson
This optimism regarding timescales is however quite understandable as
it is only those, who have already constructed and operated large scale
commercial Mo-99 production facilities, who will fully appreciate the
complexities of production and the associated regulatory hurdles. It is
therefore somewhat surprising that even Nordion is making optimistic
projections as to when their novel SGE process will have achieved
commercial readiness.
Most of the domestic programs were motivated on the basis of a supply
shortage after October 2016 when medical isotope production was
destined to cease in the NRU reactor. This was a position which had been
consistently maintained until early in 2015 at which stage the Canadian
government announced that it would support the extension of NRU
operations until the end of March 2018 to help support global medical
isotope demand should shortages occur in this time. Since it would
appear that none of the current US domestic programs will be in
commercial production by 2016, one could imagine that NRU will
seamlessly continue to operate beyond October 2016 enabling Nordion to
continue the supply of Mo-99 except for the annual NRU shutdown when
presumably the suppliers from abroad will once again be required to step
up to the plate.
Clearly capacity constraints are a major concern but this is the
symptom arising from the real crisis confronting the industry namely the
inappropriate pricing of technetium-99m (Tc-99m) and hence Mo-99.
Historically, Mo-99 production evolved out of government research
institutes and as a result government subsidisation was implicit in the
industry. Because of these historical subsidisations, Tc-99m has become a
trivially priced low value commodity with there being no correlation
between the market price of the isotope and the true actual cost of
production.
Back in 2009 there was an isotope supply crisis resulting from the
extended closure of NRU. The supply shortages resulted in disruptions in
the availability of critical nuclear medicine based diagnostic
procedures. This impact on global healthcare led the OECD's Nuclear
Energy Agency, at the request of its member countries, to establish the
High Level Group on the Security of Supply of Medical Radioisotopes.
Soon after its inception, this group identified and publicised that the
unreliable supply of Mo-99 and Tc-99m could be directly attributed to
the inappropriate pricing structure of the supply chain. It was
emphasised that, unless this was urgently addressed, supply disruptions
would continue, jeopardising the future of nuclear medicine diagnostic
imaging. Unfortunately five years later, despite this warning, little to
no progress has been made with the rectification of the situation and
there is continual downward pressure on the price of Tc-99m.
Since it has been generally accepted that any form of government
subsidisation should be removed from the industry all Mo-99 producers
are presumably obliged to manage their businesses on sound commercial
principles and of necessity deliver an appropriate ROI to shareholders
and investors. Unfortunately the increasing operational costs on the one
hand and the constant downward pressure on the price of Tc-99m and
hence Mo-99 has resulted in a business environment which does not
readily present itself as an attractive investment opportunity.
Over the years SPECT (Single photon emission computed tomography)
diagnostic imaging has grown to a level where some 100 000 Tc-99m based
scans are performed per day with an installed infrastructure of some 22
000 SPECT cameras worldwide. The market value of this industry, which
significantly contributes to the general well-being of the global
population, is estimated to be in the region of $13 billion. This
important industry remains extremely vulnerable due to a tendency of
some downstream participants in the supply chain to chase short term
profitability at the expense of long term sustainability. It has, for
example, been shown that if the current price of Mo-99 were doubled
(which would enable producers to move towards some form of business
sustainability), the final cost of a diagnostic procedure would increase
by around 2%. Despite this the downward pressure on the price of Tc-99m
and Mo-99 remains.
Over the years there have been significant investments in failed
Mo-99 production ventures. Even today significant sums are being
expended on a variety of novel production methods which are very
interesting from a scientific perspective but might well not be able to
make the transition from laboratory scale to full blown commercial
production. Those that are able to successfully make the transition will
take a lot longer and cost much more than was initially projected.
Furthermore, if the Tc-99m and Mo-99 pricing level is not radically
revised the technologically successful ventures will be at best marginal
businesses.
There is undoubtedly a need for additional Mo-99 capacity but the
greater SPECT market will have to reconcile to the fact that the surety
of supply required to support this $13 billion industry will come at a
price. Hopefully some of the US domestic programs will successfully
transition to viable commercial businesses but this will take time and
until this happens the US market will remain dependent on the
"subsidised, aging facilities from abroad producing HEU based Mo-99".
Don Robertson
Comments? Please send them to editor@world-nuclear-news.org
Don Robertson is the retired managing director of NTP Radioisotopes
SOC Ltd, a subsidiary of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
(Necsa). NTP Radioisotopes conducts its operations from the Pelindaba
nuclear facility near Pretoria.
China, Egypt agree to nuclear cooperation
28 May 2015
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-China-Egypt-agree-to-nuclear-cooperation-2805154.html
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the
construction of power reactors has been signed between China National
Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the Egyptian Nuclear Power Plant
Authority (NPPA).
 |
| The signing of the MOU (Image: CNNC) |
The MOU was signed during a CNNC delegation's visit to Egypt
between 21 and 23 May. The signing was witnessed by Egypt's first
undersecretary of the ministry of electricity and renewable energy
Hassan Mahmoud Hassanein.
In a statement CNNC said the signing of the MOU marks a new phase in
work to develop nuclear energy in Egypt and that the company has now
become "one of the official partners for Egypt's nuclear power
projects".
In February, Egypt and Russia signed an MOU on the construction of a
nuclear power plant in the North African country. Russian state nuclear
corporation Rosatom and the Egyptian ministry of electricity and
renewable energy "agreed to launch detailed discussions on the
prospective project," Rosatom said in a statement.
Rosatom subsidiary Rusatom Overseas and the NPPA signed a project
development agreement for a nuclear power plant with a desalination
facility.
The El-Dabaa site on Egypt's Mediterranean coast was selected for a
nuclear plant in 1983, but this scheme was scrapped after the Chernobyl
accident in Ukraine. However, in 2006, the same site was named in plans
to build a 1000 MWe reactor for electricity generation and water
desalination by 2015, in a $1.5-$2 billion project that would be open to
foreign participation.
Early in 2010 the proposal had expanded to four plants by 2025, the
first costing about $4 billion and being on line in 2019 or 2020. Plans
were put on hold in 2011 until the political situation stabilised
following the ousting of former president Hosni Mubarak.
Researched and writtenby World Nuclear News
Egypt and Russia agree to build nuclear reactors
10 February 2015
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Egypt-and-Russia-agree-to-build-nuclear-reactors-10021501.html
Egypt and Russia have agreed to build a nuclear power plant
together and officials from both countries have signed a memorandum of
understanding on the proposed project.
Egypt's president, Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, announced the plan during a
joint press conference in Cairo with Russian President Vladimir Putin
who is on a state visit to Egypt.
Within the framework of the visit, Russian state nuclear corporation
Rosatom and the Egyptian Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy
"agreed to launch detailed discussions on the prospective project,"
Rosatom said in a statement.
Rusatom Overseas and Egyptian Nuclear Power Plants Authority have
signed a project development agreement for a nuclear power plant with a
desalination facility.
Sergey Kirienko, Rosatom director general, said the agreement
provides for the construction of two nuclear power units, with the
prospect of a further two.
"In a very short period of time, we need to prepare for the signing
of two intergovernmental agreements - one on nuclear power plant
construction and one on financing. During the negotiations, we have been
set the task to perform at maximum speed, and Rosatom is ready for
that."
Researched and writtenby World Nuclear News
Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle
(Updated 22 May 2015)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Russia--Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/
- A major increase in uranium mine production is planned.
- There is increasing international involvement in parts of Russia's fuel cycle.
- Exports are a major Russian political and economic objective.
Contents
- Uranium resources and mining
- Fuel Cycle Facilities: front end
- Used Fuel and Reprocessing
- Wastes
- Decommissioning
- Organisation
- Regulation and safety
- Exports: fuel cycle
- Exports: general, plants and projects
- International Collaboration
- Research & Development
- Public Opinion
- Non-proliferation
- Appendix: Background: Soviet nuclear culture
Russia uses about 3800 tonnes of natural uranium per year. After
enrichment, this becomes 190 tU enriched to 4.3% for 9 VVER-1000
reactors (at 2004, now 13), 60 tU enriched to 3.6% for 6 VVER-440s, 350
tU enriched to 2.0% for 11 RBMK units, and 6 tU enriched to 20% (with 9
tU depleted) for the BN-600. Some 90 tU recycled supplements the RBMK
supply at about 2% enrichment. This RepU arises from reprocessing the
used fuel from BN, VVER-440 and marine and research reactors.
There is high-level concern about the development of new uranium
deposits, and a Federal Council meeting in April 2015 agreed to continue
the federal financing of exploration and estimation works in Vitimsky
Uranium Region in Buryatia. It also agreed to financing construction of
the engineering infrastructure of Mine No. 6 of Priargunsky Industrial
Mining and Chemical Union (PIMCU). The following month the Council
approved key support measures including the introduction of a zero rate
for mining tax and property tax; simplification of the system of
granting subsoil use rights; inclusion of the Economic Development of
the Far East and Trans-Baikal up to 2018 policy in the Federal Target
Program; and the development of infrastructure in Krasnokamensk.
Uranium resources and mining
Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 10%
of world reasonably assured resources plus inferred resources up to US$
130/kg – 487,000 tonnes U (2011 'Red Book'). Historic uranium
exploration expenditure is reported to have been about $4 billion. The
Federal Natural Resources Management Agency (Rosnedra) reported that
Russian uranium reserves grew by 15% in 2009, particularly through
exploration in the Urals and Kalmykia Republic, north of the Caspian
Sea.
Uranium production has varied from 2870 to 3560 tU/yr since 2004, and
in recent years has been supplemented by that from ARMZ Kazakh
operations, giving 7629 tU in 2012. In 2006 there were three mining
projects in Russia, since then others have been under construction and
more projected, as described below. Cost of production in remote areas
such as Elkon is said to be US$ 60-90/kg. Spending on new ARMZ domestic
projects in 2013 was RUR 253.5 million, though in November 2013 all
Rosatom investment in mining expansion was put on hold due to low
uranium prices.
Plans announced in 2006 for 28,600 t/yr U3O8
output by 2020, 18,000t of this from Russia* and the balance from
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Mongolia have since taken shape,
though difficulties in starting new Siberian mines makes the 18,000 t
target unlikely. Three uranium mining joint ventures were established in
Kazakhstan with the intention of providing 6000 tU/yr for Russia from
2007: JV Karatau, JV Zarechnoye and JV Akbastau. (see below and Kazakhstan paper)
* See details for April 2008 ARMZ plans. In 2007
TVEL applied for the Istochnoye, Kolichkanskoye, Dybrynskoye,
Namarusskoye and Koretkondinskoye deposits with 30,000 tU in proved and
probable reserves close to the Khiagda mine in Buryatia.
From foreign projects: Zarechnoye 1000 t, Southern Zarechnoye 1000 t, Akbastau 3000 t (all in Kazakhstan); Aktau (Uzbekistan) 500 t, Novo-Konstantinovskoye (Ukraine) 2500 t. In addition Russia would like to participate in development of Erdes deposit in Mongolia (500t) as well as in Northern Kazakhstan deposits Semizbai (Akmolonsk Region) and Kosachinoye.
*(this chart is now slightly out of date but still gives a general picture)
AtomRedMetZoloto (ARMZ) is the state-owned company which took over
Tenex and TVEL uranium exploration and mining assets in 2007-08, as a
subsidiary of Atomenergoprom (79.5% owned). It inherited 19 projects
with a total uranium resource of about 400,000 tonnes, of which 340,000
tonnes are in Elkonskiy uranium region and 60,000 tonnes in
Streltsovskiy and Vitimskiy regions. The rights to all these resources
had been transferred from Rosnedra.
JSC ARMZ Uranium Holding Company (as it is now known) became the
mining division of Rosatom in 2008, responsible for all Russian uranium
mine assets and also Russian shares in foreign joint ventures. In 2008,
78.6% of JSC Priargunsky, all of JSC Khiagda and 97.85% of JSC Dalur was
transferred to ARMZ. In March 2009 the Federal Financial Markets
Service of Russia registered RUR 16.4 billion of additional shares in
ARMZ placed through a closed subscription to pay for uranium mining
assets, on top of a RUR 4 billion issued in mid 2008 to pay for the
acquisition of Priargunsky, Khiagda and Dalur. In November 2009 SC
Rosatom paid a further RUR 33 billion for ARMZ shares, increasing its
equity to 76.1%.
In 2009 and 2010 ARMZ took a 51% share in Canadian-based Uranium One
Inc, paying for this with $610 million in cash and by exchange of assets
in Kazakhstan: 50% of JVs Akbastau, Karatau and Zarechnoye, mining the
Budenovskoye and Zarechnoye deposits. (An independent financial advisor
put the value of ARMZ's stakes in the Akbastau and Zarechnoye JVs at
$907.5 million.) Uranium One has substantial production capacity in
Kazakhstan, including now those two mines with Karatau, Akdala, South
Inkai and Kharasan, as well as small prospects in USA and Australia. In
2013 ARMZ completed the purchase of outstanding shares in Uranium One,
and it became a full subsidiary of ARMZ.
Following this, Rosatom established Uranium One Holding NV (U1H) as
its platform for all international uranium mining assets belonging to
Russia, with headquarters in Amsterdam. It lists assets in Kazakhstan,
USA, Australia and Tanzania. In 2013 it accounted for 5086 tU production
at average cash cost of $16/lb U3O8, and reported
229,453 tU measured, indicated and inferred resources (attributable
share). The company plans to extend its interests into rare earths. Its
‘strategic partner’ is JSC NAC Kazatomprom.
ARMZ remains responsible for uranium mining in Russia. At the end of
2013 it was 82.75% owned by Rosatom and 17.25% TVEL. Exploration
expenditure has nearly doubled in two years to about US$ 52 million in
2008. In 2013 the government approved an exploration budget of RUR 14
billion ($450 million) through to 2020, principally in the Far East and
Northern Siberia. Deposits suitable for ISL mining will be sought in the
Transurals, Transbaikal and Kalmykyia. Other work will be in the Urals,
Siberian, Far East Federal Districts (Zauralsky, Streltsovsky, Vitimsky
and Vostochno-Zabaikalsky, and Elkonsky ore regions).
CJSC Rusburmash (RBM) is the exploration subsidiary of ARMZ.
In December 2010 ARMZ made a $1.16 billion takeover bid for
Australia's Mantra Resources Ltd which has a prospective Mkuju River
project in southern Tanzania, which was expected in production about
2013 at 1400 tU/yr. This is now under U1H.
Domestic mining
In 2009 the government accepted Rosatom’s proposal for ARMZ and
Elkonsky Mining and Metallurgical Combine to set up the “open-type joint
stock company” EGMK-Project. The state’s contribution through Rosatom
to the EGMK-Project authorized capital will be RUR 2.657 billion,
including RUR 2.391 billion in 2009 and RUR 0.266 billion in 2010.
EGMK-Project is being set up to draw up the project and design
documentation for Elkonsky Mining and Metallurgical Combine (see below).
The Russian Federation’s main uranium deposits are in four districts:
- The Trans-Ural district in the Kurgan region between Chelyabinsk and Omsk.
- Streltsovskiy in the Transbaikal or Chita region of SE Siberia near the Chinese and Mongolian borders.
- The Vitimsky district in Buryatia about 570 km northwest of Krasnokamensk.
- The more recently discovered remote Elkon district in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) some 1200 km north-northeast of the Chita region.
Present production by ARMZ is principally from the Streltsovskiy
district, where major uranium deposits were discovered in 1967, leading
to large-scale mining, originally with few environmental controls. These
are volcanogenic caldera-related deposits. Krasnokamensk is the main
town serving the mines.
In 2008 ARMZ said that it intended to triple production to 10,300 tU
per year by 2015, with some help from Cameco, Mitsui and local
investors. ARMZ planned to invest RUR 203 billion (US$ 6.1billion) in
the development of uranium mining in Russia in 2008-2015. It aimed for
20,000 tU per year by 2024. Total cost was projected at RUR 67 billion
($2 billion), mostly at Priargunsky, with RUR 4.8 billion ($144 million)
there by end of 2009 including a new $30 million, 500 tonne per day
sulfuric acid plant commissioned in 2009, replacing a 1976 acid plant.
Russian uranium mining
| Production centre | Region | First production | Orebody | Known resources: tU | Capacity: tU/yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priargunsky | Transbaikal/ Chita | 1968 | volcanic | 98,000 | 3000 |
| Dalur | Trans-ural/ Zauralsk | 2004 | sandstone | 11,000 | 800 |
| Khiagda | Vitimsky, Buryatia | 2010 | sandstone | 32,000 | 1000 |
| Gornoye | Transbaikal/ Chita | deferred | granite | 3200 | 300 |
| Olovskaya | Transbaikal/ Chita | deferred | volcanic | 8210 | 600 |
| Elkon | Yakutia/ Sakha | (2020) | metasomatite | 303,600 | 5000 |
| Lunnoye | Yakutia/ Sakha | (2016?) | polymetallic | 800 | 100 with gold |
Source: 2014 ‘Red Book’ except Olovskaya and Lunnoye.
Russian uranium production, tonnes U
| Production centre | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
| Priargunsky | 2011 | 2133 | 1970 | |
| Dalur | 529 | 562 | 578 | |
| Khiagda | 332 | 440 | 442 | plan 500+ |
| Gornoye | - | - | ||
| Olovskaya | - | - | ||
| Elkon | - | - | ||
| Lunnoye | - | - | ||
| Total | 2872 | 3135 | 2990 |
Trans-Ural/Zauralsk district, Kurgan region
A modest level of production is from Dalur in the
Trans-Ural or Zauralsk uranium region. This is a low-cost (US$ 40/kg)
acid in situ leach (ISL) operation in sandstones. Uksyanskoye is the
town supporting Dalur mine. ARMZ’s 2008 plan had production at Dalur by
acid ISL increasing from 350 to 800 tU/yr by 2019 (expanding from the
Dalmatovskoye field to Khokhlovskoye then Dobrovolskoye). In 2014 it
produced 578 tU. In 2014 JSC Dalur completed further exploration of the
Khokhlovskoye deposit and increased its resources from 4700 to 5500
tonnes. Production from it will increase from 50 tU in 2015 to 200 t/yr
by 2019. Dalur reserves in 2013 were quoted by ARMZ at 9,900 tonnes.
Streltsovskiy district, Chita/ Transbaikal region
Here, several large underground mines operated by JSC Priargunsky
Industrial Mining and Chemical Union (PIMCU – 85% ARMZ) supply
low-grade ore to a central mill near Krasnokamensk. Historical
production from Priargunsky is reported to be 140,000 tU (some from open
cut mines) and 2011 known resources (RAR + IR) are quoted as 115,000 tU
at 0.159%U. In 2013 ‘reserves’ were quoted by ARMZ at 108,700 tonnes.
Production is up to about 3000 tU/yr, about one tenth of it from heap
leaching. In 2014 production was 1970 tU.
The company has six underground mines, most of them operating: Mine
#1, Mine #2, Glubokiy Mine, Shakhta 6R, Mine #8 with extraction from
Maly Tulukui deposit, and Mine #6 developing the Argunskoye and
Zherlovoye deposits. In 2014 PIMCU closed Mine #2 temporarily and
commenced full production from Mine #8. Mining the Tulukui pit
(apparently of mine #4) ceased in the early 1990s due to low grades, but
now low-cost block-type underground leaching will be employed in the
pit bottom from March 2015 to recover the remaining 6000 tU. Following
this the pit will be filled with low-grade ore for heap leaching. Mine
#2 was making a loss in 2013 due to market conditions, and stoping
operations resumed in February 2015, with production target 130 tU for
the year, from average grade 0.15%. It is now known as section 2 of
mine #8. Some production has been exported to France, Sweden and Spain.
ARMZ's 2008 plan called for Priargunsky's production to be expanded
from 3000 to 5000 tU/yr by 2020. Mine #6 development began in 2009 for
stage 1 production from 2015 to reach full capacity in 2019, at a cost
of RUR 30 billion ($975 million), but this was put on hold in 2013. In
March 2015 ARMZ said it hoped to find co-investors in the project, and
federal funds may be forthcoming. Stage 2 was to commence in 2024. Mine
#8 began producing in 2011, towards phase 1 target capacity of 400 t/yr
by the end of 2014. Total cost of development will be RUR 4.8 billion
(RUR 3.5 billion for phase 1). However, a re-evaluation of reserves in
2012 suggested that mineable resources apart from Mine #6 amounted to
only 32,000 tU. Mine #8 resources were quoted at 12,800 tU in December
2012. In 2014 PIMCU investigated the
Streltsovskoye ore field, as part of the Kaldera project. Four
promising areas over 100 sq km were identified with resources estimated
at 80,000 tU, and they will be explored over 2015-17.
In 2014 PIMCU completed an upgrade of its sulfuric acid plant to take
daily production from 400 to 500 tonnes, for use in both the
conventional mill and in underground and heap leaching. Also the mill
(hydrometallurgical plant) process was improved.
Development of Olovskoye and Gornoye deposits* in
the Transbaikal region near Priargunsky towards Khiagda would add 900
tU/yr production for RUR 135 billion ($5.7 billion). Measured resources
together are 12,200 tU and inferred resources 1600 tU, all at 0.072%
average (JORC-compliant). In 2007 newly-formed ARMZ set up two companies
to undertake this, and possibly attract some foreign investment:
- Gornoye Uranium Mining Company to develop the Gornoye and Berezovoye mines in the Krasnochikoysky and Uletovsky districts in Chita, with underground mining and some heap leach (ore grade 0.226%U) to produce 300 tU/yr from 2014.
- Olovskaya Mining & Chemical Company to develop the Olovskoye deposits in the Chernyshevsk district of Chita region with underground, open cut and heap leach to produce 600 tU/yr from 2016.
- However, according to the 2014 'Red Book', both these are on hold.
* 2006 plans were for 2000t/yr at new prospects in
Chita Region and Buryatia (Gornoye, Berezovoye, Olovskoye, Talakanskoye
properties etc.), plus some 3000t at new deposits.
In 2006 Priargunsky won a tender to develop Argunskoye and Zherlovoye
deposits in the Chita region with about 40,000 tU reserves. Dolmatovsk
and Khokhlovsk have also been identified as new mines to be developed
(location uncertain).
Vitimsky district, Buryatia
JSC Khiagda's operations are at Vitimsky
in Buryatia about 570 km northwest of Krasnokamensk, serving
Priargunsky's operations in Chita region, and 140 km north of Chita
city. They are starting from a low base – in 2010 production from the
Khiagdinskoye ore field was 135 tU, rising to 440 tU in 2013 (fully
utilising the pilot plant) and targeting 1000 tU/yr from 2018 with a new
plant. These are a low-cost (US$ 40/kg) acid in situ leach (ISL)
operations in sandstones, and comprise the only ISL mine in the world in
permafrost. Groundwater temperature is 1-4°C, giving viscosity
problems, especially when winter air temperature is -40°C. The main
uranium mineralisation is a phosphate, requiring oxidant addition to the
acid solution. In the Khiagdinskoye field itself there are eight
palaeochannel deposits over 15 x 8 km, at depths of 90 to 280 metres
(average 170 m). Single orebodies are up to 4 km long and 15 to 400 m
wide, 1 to 20 m thick.
JSC Khiagda has resources of 55,000 tU amenable to ISL mining, with
potential estimated at 100,000 tU, though in 2013 ‘reserves’ were quoted
by ARMZ at 39,800 tonnes. The 2008 ARMZ plan envisaged production from
JSC Khiagda's project increasing to 1800 tU/yr by 2019, but in 2013 the
higher target was postponed. In 2014 JSC Khiagda continued construction
of the main production facility and on the sulfuric acid plant which is
due for commissioning in mid-2015. Its design capacity is 110,000 t/yr.
The company aims to start mining the Istochnoye and Vershinnoye deposits
5-10 km from Khiagdinskoye from 2016 and 2017 respectively, and
development of these is proceeding. In 2013 reserves were confirmed for
the Dybrynskoye, Koretkondinskoye, Kolichikanskoye and Vershinnoye
fields or deposits. The other two fields in the immediate vicinity are
Namaru and Tetrakhskoye. All these occur over an area about 50 x 20 km
and within 15 km of Khiagdinskoye field. There are also plans to install
plant for extracting rare earth oxides (REO) as by-product. The nearest
towns are Romanovka, 133 km north of Chita, and Bagdarin.
Elkon district, Sakha/Yakutia
ARMZ’s principal focus is development of the massive Elkon
project with several mines in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) some 1200 km
north-northeast of the Chita region. The Elkon project is in a
mountainous region with difficult climate conditions and little
infrastructure, making it a challenging undertaking. Production from
metasomatite deposits is planned to ramp up to 5000 tU/yr over ten
years, for RUR 90.5 billion ($3 billion), and 2020 start up is now
envisaged. Elkon is set to become Russia's largest uranium mining
complex, based on resources of over 270,000 tU. It will involve
underground mining, radiometric sorting, milling, processing and uranium
concentrate production.
Elkon Mining and Metallurgical Combine (EMMC) was set up by ARMZ to
develop the substantial Elkonsky deposits. The Elkon MMC project
involves the JSC Development Corporation of South Yakutia and aims to
attract outside funding to develop infrastructure and mining in a
public-private partnership, with ARMZ holding 51%. Foreign equity
including from Japan, South Korea and India is envisaged, and in March a
joint venture arrangement with India was announced. The Elkon MMC
developments are to become “the locomotive of the economic development
of the entire region”, building the infrastructure, electricity
transmission lines, roads and railways, as well as industrial
facilities, from 2010. Of 15 proposed construction sites, three have
been tentatively selected: at the mouth of Anbar River, Diksi Village
and Ust-Uga Village. The building of four small floating co-generation
plants to supply heat and electricity to northern regions of Yakutia is
linked with the Elkon project in southern Yakutia.
There are eight deposits in the Elkon project with resources of
320,000 tU* (RAR + IR) at average 0.146%U, with gold by-product: Elkon,
Elkon Plateau, Kurung, Neprokhodimoye, Druzhnoye (southern deposits), as
well as Severnoye, Zona Interesnoye and Lunnoye (see above). In mid
2010 ARMZ released JORC-compliant resource figures for the five southern
deposits: 71,300 tU as measured and indicated resources, and 158,500 tU
as inferred resources, averaging 0.143%U. ARMZ pointed out that the
resource assessment against international standards will increase the
investment attractiveness of EMMC. However, in September 2011 ARMZ said
that production costs would be US$ 120-130 /kgU, which would be
insufficient in the current market, and costs would need to be cut by
15-20%.
* 257,800 tU of this was in the five southern
deposits. The 2011 Red Book gives 271,000 tU resources for Elkon, or
319,000 tU in situ.
First production from EMMC was expected in 2015 ramping up to 1000
tU/yr in 2018, 2000 tU/yr in 2020 and 5000 tU/yr by 2024 based on the
southern deposits as well as Severnoye and Zona Interesnoye. This
schedule has slipped by about five years. Also, it is remote, and mining
will be underground, incurring significant development costs. ARMZ and
EMMC are seeking local government (Sakha) support for construction of
main roads and railways to access the Elkon area, and make investment
there more attractive.
JSC Lunnoye was set up by ARMZ at the same time as
EMMC to develop a small deposit jointly by ARMZ (50.1%) and a gold
mining company Zoloto Seligdara as a pilot project to gain practical
experience in the region in a polymetallic orebody. Lunnoye is expected
in full production in 2016, reaching 100 tU/yr. It has reserves of 800
tU and 13 t gold, and is managed by Zoloto Seligdara. ARMZ in mid 2011
expressed impatience with the rate of development.
Further prospects
The Federal Subsoil Resources Management Agency (Rosnedra) was
planning to transfer about 100,000 tonnes of uranium resources to
miners, notably ARMZ, in 2009-10, and 14 projects, mainly small to
medium deposits, were prepared for licensing then. They are located
mainly in Streltsovskiy (Chita), Zauralskiy (Trans-Ural) and Vitimskiy
uranium regions.
The projects prepared for licensing include:
in Chita Region – Zherlovskoye, Pyatiletnee, Dalnee and Durulguevskoye;
in Republic of Buratiya – Talakanskoye, Vitlausskoye, Imskoye, Tetrakhskoye, and Dzhilindinskoye;
in Kurgan Region – Dobrovolnoye;
in Khabarovsk Territory – Lastochka;
in Republic of Tyva – Ust-Uyuk and Onkazhinskoye;
in Republic of Khakassia – Primorskoye.
in Republic of Buratiya – Talakanskoye, Vitlausskoye, Imskoye, Tetrakhskoye, and Dzhilindinskoye;
in Kurgan Region – Dobrovolnoye;
in Khabarovsk Territory – Lastochka;
in Republic of Tyva – Ust-Uyuk and Onkazhinskoye;
in Republic of Khakassia – Primorskoye.
All together these projects have 76,600 tonnes of reasonably assured
and inferred resources, plus 106,000 tonnes of undiscovered resources.
In February 2009 Rosnedra published a list of deposits to be offered
for tender in 2009. They are located in the Republic of Karelia, Irkutsk
Region and Leningrad Region. In particular, Tyumenskiy in
Mamsko-Chuiskiy District of Irkutsk Region is to be offered for
development. Also, in the second quarter of 2009 Shotkusskaya ploshchad
in Lodeinopolsky District of Leningrad Region will be put out to tender.
In the Republic of Karelia the offer comprises Salminskaya ploshchad in
Pitkyaranskiy District and the Karku deposit. None of these 2009
offerings has reasonably assured or inferred resources quoted, only
"undiscovered" resources in Russia's P1 to P3 categories.
Foreign and private equity in uranium mining
In October 2006 Japan's Mitsui & Co with Tenex agreed to
undertake a feasibility study for a uranium mine in eastern Russia to
supply Japan. First production from the Yuzhnaya mine in Sakha (Yakutia)
Republic is envisaged for 2009. Mitsui has an option to take 25% of the
project, and is funding $6 million of the feasibility study.
Construction of the Yuzhnaya mine is likely to cost US$ 245 million,
with production reaching 1000 tU/yr by 2015. This would represent the
first foreign ownership of a Russian uranium mine.
Following from previous deals with Tenex, in November 2007 Cameco
signed an agreement with ARMZ. The two companies are to create joint
ventures to explore for and mine uranium in both Russia and Canada,
starting with identified deposits in northwestern Russia and the
Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Nunavut.
In addition to ARMZ, private companies may also participate in
tenders for mining the smaller and remote uranium deposits being
prepared for licensing in Russia. ARMZ is open to relevant investment
projects with strategic partners, and Lunnoye deposit is an example
where a private company Zoloto Seligdara is partnering with ARMZ.
Mine rehabilitation
Some RUR 340 million (US$10m) is being allocated in the federal
budget to rehabilitate the former Almaz mine in Lermontov, Stavropol
Territory, in particular Mine 1 on Beshtau Mountain and Mine 2 on Byk
Mountain, as well as reclamation of the tailings dump and industrial
site of the hydrometallurgical plant. The work will be undertaken by
Rosatom organizations under Rostechnadzor. In 2008, rehabilitation of
Lermontovsky tailings was included in a federal target program, and over
RUR 360 million was allocated for the purpose.
Secondary supplies
Some uranium also comes from reprocessing used fuel from VVER-440,
fast neutron and submarine reactors - some 2500 tonnes of uranium has so
far been recycled into RBMK reactors.
Also arising from reprocessing used fuels, some 32 tonnes of
reactor-grade plutonium has been accumulated for use in MOX. Added to
this there is now 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium from military
stockpiles to be used in MOX fuel for BN-600 and BN-800 fast neutron
reactors at Beloyarsk, supported by a $400 million payment from the USA.
Some of this weapons plutonium may also be used in the MHR
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor under development at Seversk.
About 28% of the natural uranium feed sent to USEC in USA for
enrichment, and contra to the LEU supplied from blended-down Russian
military uranium, is being sent to Russia for domestic use. The value of
this to mid 2009 was US$ 2.7 billion, according to Rosatom. See also Military Warheads as Source of Fuel paper.
Russia's uranium supply is expected to suffice for at least 80 years,
or more if recycling is increased. However, from 2020 it is intended to
make more use of fast neutron reactors.
Fuel Cycle Facilities: front end
Many of Russia's fuel cycle facilities were originally developed for
military use and hence are located in former closed cities (names
bracketed) in the country. In 2009 the conversion and enrichment plants
were taken over by the newly-established JSC Enrichment & Conversion
Complex, and in 2010 this became part of TVEL, a subsidiary of
Atomenergoprom.
Seversk is a particular focus of new investment, with Rosatom
planning to spend a total of RUR100 billion on JSC Siberian Chemical
Combine (SCC) over 2012-20 to develop its “scientific, technical and
production potential in terms of nuclear technology.” SCC comprises
several nuclear reactors and plants for conversion, enrichment,
separation and reprocessing of uranium and separation of plutonium. In
2012 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 45.5 billion ($1.6
billion) in SCC at Seversk to 2017 for modernising the enrichment
capacity and setting up a new conversion plant.
Conversion
Russia’s total uranium conversion capacity is about 25,000 tU/yr, but only about half of this is used as of 2013.
TVEL plans to consolidate its conversion capacity at JSC Siberian
Chemical Combine (SCC) at Seversk near Tomsk, where some capacity
already operates. In 2012 Rosatom said it would spend RUR 7.5 billion to
set up a new conversion plant at SCC Seversk, to commence operation in
2016. The new plant is designed to have a capacity of 20,000 tU per year
from 2020, including 2000 t of recycled uranium. Public hearings on the
project were under way in 2014.
The main operating conversion plant has been at Angarsk near Irkutsk
in Siberia, with 18,700 tonnes U/yr capacity – part of TVEL's JSC
Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine (AECC). In anticipation of
the planned new plant at SCC Seversk however, the Angarsk conversion
plant was shut down in April 2014.
TVEL also had conversion capacity at Kirovo-Chepetsky Chemical
Combine (KCCC) in Glazoy, which was shut down in the 1990s. Since 2009
this has been a RosRAO site, for clean-up
The Elektrostal conversion plant, 50 km east of Moscow, has 700 tU/yr
capacity for reprocessed uranium, initially that from VVER-440 fuel. It
is owned by Maschinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) whose Elemash fuel
fabrication plant is there. Some conversion of Kazakh uranium has been
undertaken for west European company Nukem, and all 960 tonnes of
recycled uranium from Sellafield in UK, owned by German and Netherlands
utilities, has been converted here. UK-owned recycled uranium has also
been sent there.
Enrichment
Four enrichment plants totalling 24 million kg SWU/yr of centrifuge
capacity operate at Novo-Uralsk near Yekaterinburg in the Urals,
Zelenogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-45), Seversk near Tomsk and Angarsk near
Irkutsk – the last three all in Siberia. The first two service foreign
primary demand and Seversk specialises in enriching reprocessed uranium,
including that from western Europe. As of early 2011, all are managed
by TVEL, rather than Tenex (Techsnabexport).
| Plant | Operator | Capacity (M SWU/yr) | Special features |
| Novouralsk | JSC Urals Electrochemical Combine | 10 | Can enrich to 30%, Tails enrichment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zelenogorsk | PA ElectroChemical Plant (ECP) | 8.7 (expanding to 12) | Tails enrichment |
| Seversk | JSC Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) | 3.0 | RepU enrichment |
| Angasrk | JSC Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine | 2.6 | Tails enrichment |
| total | 24.3 |
The Novouralsk (Novo-Uralsk) plant is part of the
JSC Urals Electrochemical Combine (UECC) in the Sverdlovsk region. It
has operated 8th generation centrifuges since 2003, and is now starting
to operate 9th generation units. The TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment
Centre (UEC) is buying a 25% share of UECC and becoming entitled to half
its output – up to 5 million SWU/yr (see below). In April 2013 the
government commission for control over foreign investments approved this
sale.
The Zelenogorsk plant is known as the PA
ElectroChemical Plant (ECP) in the Krasnoyarsk region (120 km east of
that city), and has ISO 14001 environmental accreditationand is starting
to run 9th generations centrifuges. Rosatom plans to invest RUR 70
billion ($2.3 billion) by 2020 in developing the plant, with up to 90%
of the new centrifuges installed there to make it the main enrichment
plant. It is the site of a new deconversion plant (see below).
The Seversk plant is part of the JSC Siberian
Chemical Combine (Sibirsky Khimichesky Kombinat – SKhK or SCC), Tomsk
region, which opened in 1953. It is about 15 km from Tomsk. As well as
the enrichment plant with substantial capacity for recycled uranium the
site has other facilities, and several plutonium production reactors
(now closed). It is starting to run 9th generations centrifuges.
Angarsk, near Irkutsk in Siberia, is part of the JSC
Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine (AECC). It is the only
enrichment plant located outside a "closed" city, nor has it had any
defence role, and hence was to be the site of the new International
Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) and fuel bank. In 2014 AECC said it
would retain its present capacity. In December 2014 it started to
undertake enrichment of tails (depleted UF6) stored on site, and expects
this to continue to 2030.
Diffusion technology was phased out by 1992 and all plants now
operate modern gas centrifuges, with fitting of 8th generation equipment
now complete. This has a service life of up to 30 years, compared with
half that previously. The last 6th & 7th generation centrifuges were
set up in 2005, 8th generation equipment was supplied over 2004 to
2012, and about 240,000 units per year replaced 5th generation models.
(6th generation units are still produced for export to China.) The
technology is attributed by Nuclear.Ru to VNIPIET in St Petersburg,
though Tenex took over responsibility for manufacturing the equipment
through JSC Russian Gas Centrifuge and JSC Khimprom Engineering.
Production was consolidated at Kovrov Mechanical Plant (KMP) in Vladimir
region and the Urals Gas Centrifuge Plant (UZGT) in Novouralsk – some
had been at Tocmash to 2012. The first 9th generation centrifuges were
supplied to UECC early in 2013 from UZGT, following 2012 production at
KMP.
The UECC Novouralsk plant is the largest (10 M SWU/yr) and can enrich
to 30% U-235 (for research and BN fast reactors), the others only to 5%
U-235. The JSC Electrochemical Plant (ECP) at Zelenogorsk is 5.8 M
SWU/yr and is introducing ISO9001 quality assurance system. In June 2011
Rosatom said the plant's capacity was now 8.7 M SWU/yr and it planned
to increase that to 12 M SWU/yr by 2020 at a cost of RUR 45-60 billion
with a view to exporting its services. In mid 2012 the first
8th-generation centrifuges were installed and commissioned here.
A significant proportion of the capacity of both plants – some 7 M
SWU/yr – was taken up by enrichment of former tails (depleted uranium),
including for west European companies Areva and Urenco. According to WNA
sources, about 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of tails per year, with U-235
assays between 0.25% and 0.40%, has been shipped to Russia for
re-enrichment to about 0.7% U-235 since 1997. The tails were stripped
down to about 0.10% U-235, and remain in Russia, being considered a
resource for future fast reactors. The contracts for this work for
Urenco and Areva ended in 2010.
A portion of the Zelenogorsk capacity, about 4.75 M SWU/yr, is taken
up with re-enrichment of tails to provide 1.5% enriched material for
downblending much of the Russian HEU destined for USA (though all the
other three plants may have contributed over the 20 years).
Seversk capacity is about 3 M SWU/yr, and some recycled uranium (from
reprocessing) has been enriched here for Areva, under a 1991 ten-year
contract covering about 500 tonnes UF6. (French
media reports in 2009 alleging that wastes from French nuclear power
plants was stored at Seversk probably refer to tails from enrichment of
the recycled uranium.) It is understood to be enriching the 960 tU of
reprocessed uranium from Sellafield in UK, belonging to its customers in
Germany and Netherlands, sent to Elektrostal in eight shipments over
2001-09.
In 2012 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 45.5 billion
($1.6 billion) in SCC at Seversk to 2017 for modernising the enrichment
capacity and setting up a new conversion plant.
Angarsk (AECC) is the smallest of three Siberian plants, with
capacity of about 2.6 million SWU/yr. In July 2011 TVEL confirmed that
there were no plans to expand it. The International Uranium Enrichment
Centre (IUEC) has been set up at Angarsk (see following IUEC section).
TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment Centre (UEC)
In
the context of a December 2006 agreement with Kazakhstan, in 2008
Kazatomprom set up a 50-50 joint venture with Techsnabexport (Tenex) for
financing a 5 million SWU/yr increment to the Angarsk plant, with each
party to contribute about US$ 1.6 billion and hold 50% equity. It then
appeared that initial JV capacity would be about 3 million SWU/yr, with
first production in 2011. However, in 2010 Rosatom announced that this
would not proceed, due to surplus world capacity, but other joint
venture enrichment arrangements with Kazatomprom were offered, notably
up to a 49% share in Novouralsk or Zelenogorsk.
After deciding that it would be uneconomic to expand capacity at
Angarsk, in March 2011 it was announced that Kazatomprom would buy a
share in Urals Electrochemical Combine (UECC) which owns the Novouralsk
plant through its 50% equity in the TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment
Centre (UEC), "instead of building new capacity at AECC" at Angarsk
where UEC was originally established. In mid-2011 it was reported that
Kazatomprom would acquire shares in UECC either directly (30%) or in the
event as a 50% shareholder in UEC with TVEL, related to the need to
enrich 6000 tU/yr. Over 2012-13 UEC acquired 25% of UECC, and UEC became
operational in the second half of 2013, with access to 5 million SWU/yr
– about half of UECC production. The cost of the Kazatomprom share,
earlier estimated by it at $500 million, was not disclosed. The first
batch of enriched uranium was shipped in November 2013. UEC share of
production in 2014 was 4.99 million SWU.
Deconversion
Russia's W-ECP deconversion plant is at Zelenogorsk Electrochemical
Plant (ECP). The 10,000 t/yr deconversion (defluorination) plant was
built by Tenex under a technology transfer agreement with Areva NC, so
that depleted uranium can be stored long-term as uranium oxide, and HF
is produced as a by-product. The W-ECP plant is similar to Areva's W2
plant at Pierrelatte in France and has mainly west European equipment.
It was commissioned in December 2009 and to the end of 2014 had
processed 40,000 t DU fluoride. The Russian-designed phase 2 for
production of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride was commissioned in December
2010. During the five years to end of 2014, a total of over 25,000
tonnes of hydrofluoric acid and some 4500 t of anhydrous hydrogen
fluoride were shipped to customers.
Fuel fabrication
This is undertaken by JSC TVEL, which supplies 76 nuclear reactors in
Russia and 13 in other countries as well as 30 research reactors and
fuel for naval and icebreaker reactors. Its operations are certified
against ISO 9001 and it has about 17% of the world market for fabricated
fuel.
TVEL has the following fuel fabrication plants with combined capacity of 2500 t/yr finished fuel:
- The huge Maschinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) at Elektrostal 50 km east of Moscow – known as Elemash.
- Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP) in Siberia.
- Chepetsk Mechanical Plant (CMP) near Glazov in Udmurtiya which makes zirconium cladding and also some uranium products.
Most fuel pellets for RBMK and VVER-1000 reactors were being made at
the Ulba plant at Ust Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, but Elemash and
Novosibirsk have increased production. MSZ/Elemash produces fuel
assemblies for both Russian and west European rectors using fresh and
recycled uranium. It also fabricates research reactor and icebreaker
fuel. Novosibirsk produces mainly VVER 440 & 1000 fuel, including
that for initial use in China. MSZ/Elemash is the principal exporter of
fuel assemblies. Total production is about 1400 t/yr, including fuel
assemblies for VVER-440, VVER-1000, RBMK-1000, BN-600 reactors, powders
and fuel pellets for delivery to foreign clients. The plant also
produces nuclear fuel for research reactors.
TVEL’s NCCP also produces pure lithium-7 for use in PWR cooling systems, and accounts for over 70% of world supply.
Some PWR reactors, e.g. Kalinin 2 and Balakovo 3, are using recycled uranium in TVSA fuel assemblies from TVEL.
In late 2007 it was decided that MOX fuel production using recycled
materials should be based on electrometallurgical (pyrochemical)
reprocessing and vibropack dry processes for fuel fabrication, as
developed at RIAR. The goals for closing the fuel cycle included
minimising cost, recycle of minor actinides (for burning), excluding
separated plutonium, and arrangement of all procedures in remote systems
to allow for 'hot' materials.
There is no plan or provision to use MOX in light-water reactors.
FNR fuel fabrication, MOX and nitride
A 60 t/yr commercial mixed oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility
(MFFF) started up at Zheleznogorsk (formerly Krasnoyarsk-26, 70 km NE of
Krasnoyarsk) in 2014, operated by the Mining & Chemical Combine
(MCC or GKhK). This was built at a cost of some RUR 7 billion as part of
Rosatom’s Proryv, or 'Breakthrough', project, to develop fast reactors
with a closed fuel cycle whose mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel will be
reprocessed and recycled. It is also the Russian counterpart to the US
MFFF for disposition of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium. The MFFF
will make 400 pelletised MOX fuel assemblies per year for the BN-800 and
future BN-1200 fast reactors. The capacity is designed to be able to
supply five BN-800 units. First production of fuel assemblies for
Beloyarsk 4 is expected in 2014, and full capacity is expected in 2016.
It is built in rock tunnels at a depth of about 200 metres.
Longer-term MCC Zheleznogorsk is intending to produce MOX granules
for vibropacked fuel using civil plutonium oxide, ex-weapons plutonium
metal and depleted uranium. Initial capacity of 14 t/yr of granules was
funded to RUR 5.1 billion (US$ 169 million) over 2010-12. The granulated
MOX is sent to RIAR Dimitrovgrad for vibropacking into FNR fuel
assemblies.
A small pelletised MOX fuel fabrication plant has operated at the
Mayak plant at Ozersk since 1993, for BN-350 and BN-600 fuel (40 fuel
assemblies per year), and it will supply some initial pelletised MOX
fuel for BN-800 start-up. A new 14 tonne per year plant to fabricate
dense mixed nitride fuel for fast neutron reactors is planned at PA
Mayak, to operate from 2018. In the federal target program to 2020, RUR
9.35 billion (US$ 310 million) is budgeted for it. Later it may be
expanded to 40 tonnes per year.
The Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR or NIIAR) at
Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk, has a small MOX fuel fabrication plant. This
produces vibropacked fuel which is more readily recycled. Under the
federal target program this was allocated RUR 2.95 billion (US$ 83
million) for expansion to produce 400 fuel assemblies per year, from
2012. Its main research has been on the use of military plutonium in
MOX, in collaboration with France, USA and Japan.
A fabrication plant for dense MOX fuel for fast reactors is planned
for the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) at Seversk, to be completed by
the end of 2017, and RUR 5.8 billion has been allocated by TVEL for the
equipment. This was to use military plutonium.
Vibropacked MOX fuel (VMOX) is seen as the way forward. This is made
by agitating a mechanical mixture of (U, Pu)O2 granulate and uranium
powder, which binds up excess oxygen and some other gases (that is,
operates as a getter) and is added to the fuel mixture in proportion
during agitation. The getter resolves problems arising from
fuel-cladding chemical interactions. The granules are crushed UPuO2
cathode deposits from pyroprocessing. VMOX needs to be made in hot
cells. It has been used in BOR-60 since 1981 (with 20-28% Pu), and
tested in BN-350 and BN-600 as part of a hybrid core (with some military
plutonium). This was evaluated by OKBM and Japan Nuclear Cycle
Development Institute.
The V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute
has developed REMIX fuel. REMIX (from Regenerated Mixture) fuel is
produced directly from non-separated mix of recycled uranium and
plutonium from reprocessing used fuel with a LEU (16% U-235) uranium
make-up. REMIX-fuel “can be repeatedly recycled with 100% core load in
current VVER-1000 reactors and, correspondingly reprocessed many times.”
In addition, the use of REMIX-fuel allows reducing consumption of
natural uranium in VVERs by 20% at each recycle as compared with open
fuel cycle. REMIX could serve as a replacement for existing reactor
fuel.
In collaboration with TVEL, the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) at
Seversk is making test batches of dense nitride fuel for fast reactors.
SCC completed tests on the first TVS-4 nitride fuel assembly in the
BN-600 reactor in September 2014. In April 2015 two ETVS-5 fuel
assemblies with nitride were put into the BN-600 for testing. RUR 17
billion is budgeted for the nitride fuel development, which is mainly
for the BREST-300 reactor and part of the Proryv or
Breakthrough project. Construction of the pilot nitride fuel plant
started in March 2014 with a view to operation from 2017-18, in time to
produce fuel for the first BREST-300 reactor. Construction of the
reactor is set to begin in 2016 for 2020 operation. A nitride fuel
reprocessing facility is expected to come online at SCC in 2022, and the
Proryv project at SCC is expected to be fully operational from 2023.
TVEL owns 35% equity in the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan.
This has major new investment under way. It has secured both ISO 9001
and ISO 14001 accreditation. Since 1973 Ulba has produced nuclear fuel
pellets from Russian-enriched uranium which are used in Russian and
Ukrainian VVER and RBMK reactors. Some of this product incorporates
gadolinium and erbium burnable poisons. Ulba briefly produced fuel for
submarines (from 1968) and satellite reactors. Since 1985 it has been
able to handle reprocessed uranium, and it has been making fuel pellets
incorporating this for western reactors, supplied through TVEL.
TVEL's Moscow Composite Metal Plant designs and makes control and protection systems for nuclear power reactors.
International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC)
The IUEC concept was inaugurated at the end of 2006 in collaboration
with Kazakhstan, and in March 2007 the IAEA agreed to set up a working
group and continue developing the proposal. In September 2007 the joint
stock company Angarsk International Uranium Enrichment Centre (JSC
Angarsk IUEC) was registered and a year later Rostechnadzor licensed the
centre.
Late in 2008 Ukraine's Nuclear Fuel Holding Company, SC Nuclear Fuel,
decided to take a 10% stake in it, matching Kazatomprom's 10%, and this
was effected in October 2010. Armenia finalised its 10% share in IUEC
in May 2012 (2600 shares for RUR 2.6 million). Negotiations since then
have proceeded with South Africa, Vietnam, Bulgaria, UAE, and Mongolia
(in connection with Russian uranium interests there). Russia also
invited India to participate in order to secure fuel for its Kudankulam
plant. The aim is for Techsnabexport/TVEL eventually to hold only 51%.
Each of the 26,000 IUEC shares is priced at RUR 1000.
Present equity in JSC Angarsk IUEC: TVEL 70%, Kazatomprom 10%, Ukraine: Nuclear Fuel 10%, Armenia NPP 10%.
The centre
is to provide assured supplies of low-enriched uranium for power
reactors to new nuclear power states and those with small nuclear
programs, giving them equity in the project, but without allowing them
access to the enrichment technology. Russia will maintain majority
ownership. IUEC will sell both enrichment services (SWU) and enriched
uranium product. Arrangements for IAEA involvement were being sorted out
in 2009, and in 2010 a feasibility study commenced on IUEC investment,
initially for equity in JSC Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine
(AECC) so that part of its capacity supplies product to IUEC
shareholders.
The existing enrichment plant at Angarsk was to feed
the IUEC and accordingly was removed from the category of "national
strategic installations", though it had never been part of the military
program. In February 2007 the IUEC was entered into the list of Russian
nuclear facilities eligible for implementation of IAEA safeguards. The
USA has expressed support for the IUEC at Angarsk.
Development of the IUEC was envisaged in three phases:
- Use part of the existing capacity at Angarsk in cooperation with Kazatomprom and under IAEA supervision.
- Expand Angarsk capacity (perhaps double) with funding from new partners by 2017.
- Full internationalisation with involvement of many customer nations under IAEA auspices.
In 2012-13 the IUEC website (http://eng.iuec.ru) said that “the JSC IUEC has been established within the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Complex, but it can use capacities of other three Russian combines to diversify production and optimize logistics.”
IUEC guaranteed LEU reserve ('Fuel Bank')
In November 2009 the IAEA Board approved a Russian proposal to create an international guaranteed reserve or
"fuel bank" of low-enriched uranium under IAEA control at the IUEC at
Angarsk. This was established a year later and comprises 123 tonnes of
low-enriched uranium as UF6, enriched 2.0 - 4.95%
U-235 (with 40t of latter), available to any IAEA member state in good
standing which is unable to procure fuel for political reasons. It is
fully funded by Russia, held under safeguards, and the fuel will be made
available to IAEA at market rates, using a formula based on spot
prices. Following an IAEA decision to allocate some of it, Rosatom will
transport material to St Petersburg and transfer title to IAEA, which
will then transfer ownership to the recipient. The 120 tonnes of
low-enriched uranium as UF6 is equivalent to two full fuel loads for a
typical 1000 MWe reactor, and in 2010 was worth some US$ 250 million.
This initiative will complement the proposed IAEA 'fuel bank' in
Kazakhstan by making more material available to the IAEA for assurance
of fuel supply to countries without their own fuel cycle facilities. In
May 2012 it was announced that this IAEA ‘fuel bank” would be located at
the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan, which has 50 years
experience in handling UF6. The IAEA signed an agreement for this with the Kazakh government in April 2015.
Used Fuel and Reprocessing
Russian policy is to close the fuel cycle as far as possible and
utilise recycled uranium, and eventually also to use plutonium in MOX
fuel. However, its achievements in doing this have been limited – in
2011 only about 16% of used fuel was reprocessed, this being from
VVER–440s, BN-600, research reactors and naval reactors. It is used for
RBMK fuel. Rosatom’s head of used fuel management has said that the
target for 2020 is 100%. He outlined several projects towards this at
two sites:
- At Mayak Production Association in Ozersk, the RT-1 spent fuel reprocessing facility will be first updated, and then decommissioned in about 2030.
- At Mining and Chemical Combine (MCC) in Zheleznogorsk, the MOX fuel fabrication plant for fast reactors would be completed in 2014 (see above).
- At MCC the pilot demonstration center (PDC), for used nuclear fuel reprocessing will be completed by 2016.
- At MCC the full-scale RT-2 facility will be completed to reprocess VVER, RBMK and BN used fuel into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel or into Remix – the regenerated mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides.
- At MCC the spent fuel pool storage is replaced by dry storage, which will become the destination for all of Russia’s used fuel..
All used fuel is stored at reactor sites for at least three years to
allow decay of heat and radioactivity. High burn-up fuel requires longer
before it is ready to transport. At present the used fuel from RBMK
reactors and from VVER-1000 reactors is stored (mostly at reactor sites)
and not reprocessed. It is expected that used fuel in storage will
build up to about 40,000 tonnes by the time substantial reprocessing at
MCC Zheleznogorsk gets under way about 2022. The materials from this
will be burned largely in fast reactors by 2050, when none should
remain.
In late 2007 it was decided that MOX fuel production using recycled
materials from both light water and fast reactors should be based on
electrometallurgical (pyrochemical) reprocessing. The goals for closing
the fuel cycle are minimising cost, minimising waste volume, recycle of
minor actinides (for burning), excluding separated plutonium, and
arrangement of all procedures in remote-handled systems. This
reprocessing route remains to be developed.
RT-1 reprocessing plant
Used fuel from VVER-440 reactors Kola 1-4 and Rovno 1-2 in Ukraine),
the BN-600 (Beloyarsk) and from naval reactors is sent to the Mayak
Chemical Combine's 400 t/yr RT-1 plant (Chelyabinsk-65) at Ozersk, near
Kyshtym 70 km northwest of Chelyabinsk in the Urals for reprocessing.
The original reprocessing plant at the site was hastily built in the mid
1940s, for military plutonium production in association with five
producer reactors (the last shut down in 1990). The RT-1 plant started
up in 1971 and employs the Purex process. It had reprocessed about 5000
tonnes of used fuel to 2012 and is reported to be running at about 100
t/yr capacity, following the loss of foreign contracts, but also that
reprocessing does not keep pace with inputs, so some used fuel is stored
there, along with vitrified HLW. About 93% of its feed is from Russian
and Ukrainian VVER-440 reactors, about 3% from naval sources or
icebreakers and 3% from BN-600. It earlier reprocessed BN-350 used
fuel. Damaged used fuel is to be reprocessed there to avoid the need for
prolonged storage.
Recycled uranium is enriched to 2.6% U-235 by mixing RepU product
from different sources and is used in all fresh RBMK fuel, while
separated plutonium oxide is stored. High-level wastes are vitrified and
stored. A project to upgrade the RT-1 plant and enable it to take
VVER-1000 fuel is due to be completed in 2015. The 2009 federal program
had it reaching 500 t/yr from 2012. However, after the commissioning of
the RT-2 plant at MCC, it is due to be decommissioned about 2030. Used
fuel storage capacity there is being increased from 6000 to 9000 tonnes.
Zheleznogorsk MCC, Pilot Demonstration Centre and RT-2 reprocessing plant
VVER-1000 used fuel is sent to the Mining & Chemical Combine
(MCC) (Gorno-Khimichesky Kombinat - GHK) at Zheleznogorsk
(Krasnoyarsk-26) in Siberia for storage. The site is about 60 km north
of Krasnoyarsk. This fuel comes from three Russian, three Ukrainian and
one Bulgarian plants. A large pool storage facility was built by MCC at
Zheleznogorsk in 1985 for VVER-1000 used fuel, though its 6000 tonne
capacity would have been filled in 2010. The facility was fully
refurbished over 2009-10, and some dry storage capacity was commissioned
in 2011. In December 2009 Rostechnadzor approved pool storage expansion
to 7200 tonnes and in August 2010 MCC was seeking approval to expand it
to 8400 tonnes capacity to allow another 6 years input. RBMK fuel is
being transferred to dry storage there pending a final decision on
reprocessing it.
A Pilot Demonstration Centre (PDC) for several reprocessing
technologies is under construction by MCC at Zheleznogorsk at a cost of
RUR 8.4 billion, to be commissioned by 2016 as a "Strategic Investment
Project". Its initial capacity will be 100 t/yr, with later increase to
250 t/yr in 2018. It will have innovative technology including
embrittlement by crystallization, and simultaneous gas, thermo and
mechanical spent fuel assembly shredding. Initially it will deal with
VVER-1000 fuel, later with fuel from fast reactors. It will effectively
be the first stage of the large redesigned RT-2 plant at the MCC/GHK
site to be operational about 2024. The cost of RepU product is expected
to be some EUR 500/kg. It is suggested that the PDC “can be used for
demonstration of the closed nuclear fuel cycle of thermal neutron
reactors running on REMIX-fuel” as well as producing MOX fuel.
The RT-2 reprocessing plant at Zheleznogorsk is now on track for
completion with 700 t/yr capacity. Originally it was planned to have two
1500 t/yr lines, but for some time the project was under review.
Construction started in 1984 but halted in 1989 when 30-40% complete due
to public opposition and lack of funds, though in 1993 it was
officially reported as "under construction". It is now being redesigned
and is expected to operate from around 2025, for both VVER-1000 and RBMK
fuel, and also BN fuel. The facility could form part of the new Global
Nuclear Infrastructure Initiative (see international section below).
At SCC Seversk a reprocessing plant for nitride fuel from BREST fast
reactors is envisaged to operate from 2022, closing that fuel cycle. In
October 2014 SCC announced a tender for a project works for a plant to
be completed by 2018, with VNIPIET as SCC’s preferred bidder. The actual
RUR 20 billion plant is to have capacity of 5 t/yr used fuel from
BREST-300 and 0.5 t/yr of “rejects from electrolysis process and
americium-containing burning elements.” This will be part of the Pilot
Demonstration Power Complex with the BREST reactor.
Since 2004 an 8600 tonne dry storage facility for
used fuel (INF DSF-2) has been under construction at Zheleznogorsk and
the first stage was completed by the E4 Group at the end of 2011 at a
cost of about US$ 500 million for the MCC/GHK. It is the largest dry
storage facility in the world and will take 8129 tonnes of RBMK fuel,
initially from Leningrad and Kursk power plants, followed by Smolensk.
RBMK fuel is not presently economic to reprocess so has been stored at
reactor sites, and when transferred to MCC from 2012 will be stored in
hermetically sealed capsules filled with nitrogen and helium, inside a
building but air cooled. The second stage of MCC dry storage will take
VVER-1000 fuel currently in wet storage there and increase capacity to
over 32,000 tonnes (25,000 t RBMK, 7000 t VVER). It is expected to be
commissioned about the end of 2015. The wet storage facility is to be
decommissioned in 2026. Used fuel will be stored for up to 50 years,
pending reprocessing.
(Three decommissioned graphite-moderated reactors which principally
produced military plutonium, with associated underground reprocessing
plant, are also at MCC Zheleznogorsk. The huge underground complex,
200-250 m deep, was originally established in 1950 for plutonium and
weapons production.)
Some kind of radioactive waste processing plant is under construction
at the Kursk nuclear power station, according to Nikimt-Atomstroy. A
completed section, fully operational by the end of 2014, will process
liquid radioactive waste. The two remaining sections of the project
include a processing facility for solid radioactive waste and a storage
facility.
In June 2011 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 35 billion
in MCC to 2030, including particularly MOX fuel fabrication. In February
2012 the figure was put at RUR 80 billion minimum.
Bilibino's LWGR used fuel is stored at site.
Other MOX plants
A small MOX fuel fabrication plant has operated at the Mayak complex at Ozersk since 1993. A 60 t/yr commercial MOX fabrication plant for fast reactors is under construction by MCC at Zheleznogorsk (the site of the ADE2 military plutonium production reactor), to be completed in 2014.Another MOX plant for disposing of military plutonium is planned at Seversk (Tomsk-7) in Siberia, to the same design as its US equivalent. (Seversk had the other two dual-purpose but basically military plutonium production reactors, totalling 2500 MWt. One of these – ADE4 – was shut down in April 2008, the other – ADE5 – in June 2008.) See also Fuel Fabrication section above.
Wastes
Russia's Duma passed a new Federal Law on Radioactive Waste
Management in June 2011, after 19 months consideration and many
amendments. It was passed by the state Council in July and then signed
into law. It establishes a legal framework for radioactive waste
management, provides for a national radwaste management system meeting
the requirements of the Joint Convention on the Safe Management of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and on the Safe Management of Radioactive Waste ratified
by Russia in 2006.
Rosatom and the National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management –
FSUE NO RAO – is now responsible for coordination and execution of works
associated with radwaste management, notably its disposal. This
includes military wastes. The law establishes time limits for interim
radwaste storage and volume limits for waste generators, and defines how
they should bring wastes in condition suitable for disposal and
transfer it to the national operator along with payment of disposal
charges. Import and export of radwaste is banned. All newly-generated
waste is the responsibility of its generators who will pay for its
disposal and storage, with funds accumulated in the SC Rosatom’s bank
account as a special fund. However, the 2011 law did not address how to
resolve property disputes in siting, nor local authority
responsibilities, nor financing mechanisms for affected municipalities.
In October 2014 NO RAO submitted to Rosatom proposals for changes in
legislation on these matters so that it could proceed with its mandate.
Rosatom plans to draft two more laws: on decommissioning and used fuel management.
FSUE RosRAO
is a Moscow-based Rosatom company providing commercial back-end
radwaste and decommissioning services for intermediate- and low-level
wastes as well as handling non-nuclear radwaste and nuclear
decommissioning. It commenced operation in 2009 under a temporary
arrangement pending finalisation of regulations under the new
legislation, and became part of Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division
(LC BED) in 2013. It incorporates Radon, and now has branches in each of
seven federal districts. The Kirovo-Chepetsk branch is responsible for
decommissioning that conversion plant with 440,000 tonnes of wastes by
2025 at a cost of RUR 2.1 billion.
RosRAO’s Fokino branch of the Far East Centre for Radioactive Waste
Management (DalRAO) in the Maritime Territory operates a long-term
open-air storage facility in Razboinik Bay for reactor compartments*
from dismantled submarines. The long-term storage facility was under
construction from 2006 with Japanese assistance and was commissioned in
2012. It has three ‘nuclear maintenance ships’ and the Japanese
government donated a floating dock and other equipment to move the
reactor compartments. RosRAO plans a Regional Center for Conditioning
and Long-term Storage of Radioactive Waste (RAW Regional Center) here,
mainly for naval wastes pending handover to NO RAO.
* In 2014 the first three were brought ashore, in
2015 RosRAO plans to move five and then raise the number to ten per
year, with a total of 54 three-compartment units to be placed. In
October 2014 the last spent fuel from dismantled nuclear submarines in
the Maritime Territory was dispatched to the Mayak reprocessing plant.
RosRAO's northern centre is SevRAO, in the Murmansk region, which is
engaged in remediation of the sites of Navy Northern Fleet bases, and
dismantling of retired nuclear-powered naval ships and submarines. In
May 2014 SevRAO signed a RUR100 million contract with Norway’s Finnmark
to upgrade the Andreeva Bay storage facility. This was set up in the
1960s but closed after an accident in 1982, and resumed operation with
Norway’s support in late 1990s.
RosRAO is envisaged as an international operator, providing back-end fuel cycle services globally.
The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management (NO RAO)
is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in March 2012 as the
national manager of Russia's used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,
including its disposal. It is the national operator for handling all
nuclear waste materials and the single organisation authorised to carry
out final disposal of radioactive waste, and also other related
functions. Its functions and tariffs are set by government, notably the
Ministry of Natural Resources. Its branches are at Zheleznogorsk in
Krasnoyarsk, Seversk in Tomsk, Dimitrovgrad in Ulyanovsk and (from late
2013) Novouralsk in Sverdlovsk.
NO RAO is planning repositories for 300,000 m3 of LLW and
ILW, and these plans are to be in place by 2018. It has received local
government approval in the Chelyabinsk and Tomsk regions on the final
disposal of low- and intermediate-level wastes (LLW/ILW) at the sites of
Mayak Production Association in Ozersk and Siberian Chemical Combine
(SCC), based in Tomsk. It is planning an underground research laboratory
in Nizhnekansky granitoid massif at Zheleznogorsk near Krasnoyarsk for
study into the feasibility of disposal of solid HLW and solid
medium-level long-lived wastes by 2024. See below.
The System of State Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials and
Radioactive Waste (SSAC RM&RAW) is intended to perform physical
inventory testing of nuclear materials and radioactive waste at their
locations, and carry out accounting and control of them at the federal,
regional and departmental levels. In February 2015 Rosatom introduced an
automated system for accounting and control of radwastes from more than
2000 organisations, which is to be fully implemented by the end of the
year.
In July 2013 Rostechnadzor issued five-year licences to the three
regional branches of NO RAO, for “activities associated with final
disposal of liquid radioactive waste.”
About 32 million cubic metres of radioactive waste is to be disposed
of within the framework of NO RAO’s program at a cost of about RUR 307
billion, according to Rosatom. NO RAO’s investment program runs to 2035
and includes capital investment in infrastructure of RUR 158 billion
($4.77 billion). Owners of the radioactive waste needing disposal are to
provide 80% of that money, while the remaining 20% is to come from the
federal budget. In 2013, 24,000 tonnes of used fuel was reported to be
awaiting reprocessing or disposal. Rosatom’s Social Council plays a
major role in achieving public acceptance.
Plant 20 at PA Mayak, Ozersk, is understood to be a military
plutonium processing facility employing 1900 people. There was a plan to
close it down and transfer operations to the Siberian Chemical Combine
at Seversk as part of restructuring the nuclear weapons complex, but
this was cancelled in March 2010. In 2011 Rostechnadzor said that urgent
attention was needed “to the 20 open liquid radioactive waste pools,
including decommissioning those at FGUP PA Mayak as containing the
highest concentration and amount of liquid radioactive waste.”
Used fuel from Russian-built foreign power and research reactors is
repatriated, much of it through the port of Murmansk. Some 70 containers
were unloaded and moved south by rail over 2008-2014.
A dedicated ship to transport used up to 720 tonnes of nuclear fuel
and radioactive wastes was built for Atomflot in Italy, and completed in
2011. The Rossita is apparently primarily for military wastes
and fuel from decommissioned submarines, and is used on the Northern Sea
Route cruising between Gremikha, Andreeva Bay, Saida Bay, Severodvinsk
and other territories hosting facilities which dismantle nuclear
submarines.
Waste disposal, geological repositories
No repository is yet available for high-level wastes. Earlier, site
selection was proceeding in granite on the Kola Peninsula, and 30
potential disposal sites have been identified in 18 regions, including
Siberia, the Urals, the Volga region and the Northwest federal district
in order of priority. In 2003 Krasnokamensk in the Chita region 7000 km
east of Moscow was suggested as the site for a major spent fuel
repository.
Then in 2008 the Nizhnekansky Rock Massif at Zheleznogorsk in
Krasnoyarsk Territory was put forward as a site for a national deep
geological repository. Rosatom said the terms of reference for the
facility construction would be tabled by 2015 to start design activities
and set up an underground rock laboratory. Public hearings on the
Nizhnekansky Granite Massif were held in July 2012 and in November 2013
it was identified in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme as the planned
repository site. The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management
(NO RAO) envisages the establishment of an underground laboratory in the
Yeniseysky area for these wastes and then no less than nine years'
research. It completed the design documentation for the underground
laboratory in March 2015. A decision on repository construction is due
by 2025, and the facility itself is to be completed by 2035. Phase 1 of
the facility is to be designed to hold 20,000 tonnes of intermediate-
and high-level wastes, which will be retrievable.
Low- and Intermediate-level wastes are mostly handled similarly to
those in other countries. Radon has been the organisation responsible
for medical and industrial radioactive wastes. It has had 16 storage
sites for wastes up to intermediate level. Not far outside Moscow, the
major Radon facility has both laboratories and disposal sites. Other
near-surface storage facilities were in 2008 planned for Sosnovy Bor,
Glazov, Gatchina, Novovoronezh, Kirovo-chepetsky, Murmansk, Sarov,
Saratov, Bilibino, Kransokamensk, Zelenogorsk, Seversk, Dimitrovgrad,
Angarsk, and Udomlya. In 2010 RosRAO planned to draft a general scheme
with locations of radwaste repositories (from both nuclear power plant
operations and nuclear weapons disposal) to be set up by
2020-2035. Sosnovy Bor in the Leningrad oblast was identified in the
November 2013 Regional Energy Planning Scheme as a planned repository
site for low- and intermediate-level wastes, and NO RAO has carriage of
this.
However, Russia has also for many years used deep-well injection for
low- and intermediate-level wastes from some facilities, notably
Seversk, Zheleznogorsk and Dimitrovgrad. These are mainly wastes from
reprocessing. A Central Europe review report in 1999 said that the wells
ranged from 300 up to 1500 metres deep, and that Seversk was the main
site utilising the method, with 30 million cubic metres injected. This
practice has delayed Russian acceptance of an IAEA standard for
radioactive waste disposal, since it has no packaging or engineered
barriers and relies on the geology alone for safe isolation. The new
2011 Radioactive Waste Management law said that “Underground disposal of
liquid radioactive waste may be executed, in accordance with the
requirements of federal regulations and rules, inside geological
formations (‘collector horizons’) as limited by the bounds of the area
allotted, within which liquid radioactive waste must remain localised.”
In the November 2013 Regional Energy Planning Scheme two active sites
for deep geological disposal of liquid radioactive waste (LRW) are
identified: Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk oblast, on the NIIAR site 1300 km SE
of Moscow, and a northern one: Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk territory in
Siberia, on the MCC site. A preliminary finding of the 2013 IRRS mission
from IAEA was that “License conditions related to the safety assessment
and safety case of liquid radioactive waste disposal facilities should
be revised.”
Energospetsmontazh announced in March 2015 that the trial operation
of plasma-based processing of radioactive waste had started at
Novovoronezh. The system is designed for plasma pyrolysis processing of
solid radioactive waste of medium and low activity containing both
combustible and non-combustible components.
In 2008 there were tentative plans to build 4 to 6 regional waste
repositories for low- and intermediate-level waste containing
short-lived radionuclides in North-West, East-European, South Urals
regions and in European South of Russia. For wastes containing
long-lived radionuclides, establishing one or two repositories in
Siberia and South Urals was envisaged.
Kyshtym accident and related pollution
There was a major chemical accident at Mayak Chemical Combine (then
known as Chelyabinsk-40) near Kyshtym in Russia in 1957. This plant had
been built in haste in the late 1940s for military purposes. The failure
of the cooling system for a tank storing many tonnes of dissolved
nuclear waste resulted in an explosion due to ammonium nitrate having a
force estimated at about 75 tonnes of TNT (310 GJ). Most of the 740-800
PBq of radioactive contamination settled out nearby and contributed to
the pollution of the Techa River, but a plume containing 80 PBq of
radionuclides spread hundreds of kilometres northeast. The affected area
was already very polluted – the Techa River had previously received
about 100 PBq of deliberately dumped waste, and Lake Karachay had
received some 4000 PBq. This ‘Kyshtym accident’ killed perhaps 200
people and the radioactive plume affected thousands more as it deposited
particularly Cs-127 and Sr-90. It is rated as a level 6 ‘serious
accident’ on the International Nuclear Event Scale, only surpassed by
Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.
Up to 1951 the Mayak plant had dumped its wastes into the Techa
River, whose waters ultimately flow into the Ob River and Arctic Ocean.
Then they were disposed of into Lake Karachay until at least 1953, when a
storage facility for high-level wastes was built – the source of the
1957 accident. Finally, a 1967 duststorm picked up a lot of radioactive
material from the dry bed of Lake Karachay and deposited it on to the
surrounding province. It appears that some radioactive discharges into
the Techa River continued, and that in particular between 2001 and 2004,
some 30-40 million cubic metres of radioactive effluent was discharged
near the reprocessing facility, which “caused radioactive contamination
of the environment with the isotope strontium-90.” There is no
radiological quantification.
The outcome of these three events made some 26,000 square kilometres
the most radioactively-polluted area on Earth by some estimates,
comparable with Chernobyl.
Decommissioning
Rostechnadzor oversees a major program of decommissioning old fuel
cycle facilities, financed under the Federal target program on Nuclear
and Radiation Safety. The government said it planned to spend some $5
billion to 2015 on decommissioning and waste management. Since 1995
nuclear power plants have contributed to a decommissioning fund.
Six civil reactors are being decommissioned: an experimental 50 MWt
LWGR type at Obninsk which started up in 1954 (5 MWe) and was the
forerunner of RBMKs, two early and small prototype LWGR (AMB-100 &
200) units – Beloyarsk 1&2, the Melekess VK-50 prototype BWR, and
two larger prototype VVER-440 units at Novovoronezh, a V-210 and V-365
type. The last five were shut down 1981-90 and await dismantling. The
fuel has been removed from these and that from Novovoronezh has been
shipped to centralised storage in Zheleznogorsk and will be stored there
for about ten years before reprocessing. The Beloyarsk fuel is still on
site since reprocessing technology for it is not yet available. The
plant is being dismantled, and the site is due to be clear by 2032.
Shutdown Civil Power Reactors
| Reactor | Power, MWe | (Proto)type | Started | Shut down |
| Obinsk AM-1 | 6 (50 MWt) | LWGR | 1954 | 2002 |
| Beloyarsk 1, AMB-100 | 108 | LWGR | 1964 | 1981 |
| Beloyarsk 2, AMB-200 | 160 | LWGR | 1968 | 1990 |
| Melekess | 50 | VK-50 | 1964 | 1988 |
| Novovoronezh 1 | 210 | VVER-440/V-210 | 1964 | 1988 |
| Novovoronezh 2 | 336 | VVER-440/V-365 | 1970 | 1990 |
At Novovoronezh 1&2 a decommissioning project with partial
dismantling of equipment was prepared and a licence was expected in
2010. Work will take several years, and buildings are likely to be
re-used. In particular that portion of the site houses the district
heating pumps and equipment, which provides 75% of the heat for the
city, and a spare parts store for Rosenergoatom.
In 2010 Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) in collaboration with Rosatom
set up the JSC Pilot Demonstration Center for Decommissioning of
Uranium-Graphite Reactors (PDC UGR) at SCC site to implement a
decommissioning concept for 13 shut-down uranium-graphite production
reactors (PUGR) for military plutonium. These are at Mayak Chemical
Combine at Ozersk (5), near Kyshtym, at Siberian Chemical Combine,
Seversk (5), and at Mining & Chemical Combine, Zheleznogorsk (3).
The last plutonium production reactor, ADE-2 at Zheleznogorsk, finally
closed for decommissioning in April 2010.* The fuel has been removed
from the shut-down reactors and nearly all of it has been reprocessed at
Mayak and Seversk. The concept provides for building multiple safety
barriers and sealing of shut-down reactors rather than their
dismantling, at a cost estimated to be RUR 2 billion (US$ 67 million)
each. Entombment is the option selected for EI-2, ADE-4 and ADE-5
reactors. All 13 are expected o be decommissioned by 2030 (EI-2 in
2015). In 2009 SCC won a tender to prepare for decommissioning of the
four Bilibino reactors (due to close 2019-21) and two closed ones at
Beloyarsk.
*Russia's plutonium was produced by 13 reactors at
three sites: PO Mayak (in Ozersk, also known as Chelyabinsk-65), SKhK -
the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk, also known as Tomsk-7 -
(ADE-3, 4 & 5, EI-1, EI-2), and GKhK - the Mining and Chemical
Combine in Zheleznogorsk, also known as Krasnoyarsk-26 - (AD, ADE-1
& 2). The five Mayak reactors produced an estimated 55.9t of
weapons-grade plutonium between 1948 and 1990, the five SKhK reactors
produced 69.1t between 1955 and 1994, and the three GKhK reactors
produced 44.2t between 1958 and 1994. Ten of these reactors were shut
down between 1987 and 1992.
In January 2014 Rosatom announced that the PDC UGR, having
established its credibility and expertise, would cease to be part of SCC
and become part of its new End-of-Life (EOL) Management Division, under
the Federal Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (FC NRS).
Three nuclear-powered icebreakers have been decommissioned: Lenin, Sibir and Arktika, also the support vessel: Lepse which held some used nuclear fuel from the Arctic fleet. Lepse was taken out of the water in October 2014 for further dismantling at the Nerpa Shipyard in Murmansk. Lenin is being turned into a museum.
In 2014 the Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Complex (AECC) said
that decommissioning of its conversion plant and diffusion enrichment
plants would require RUR 20 billion ($500 million). Decommissioning the
conversion capacity at Kirovo-Chepetsky Chemical Combine which was shut
down in the 1990s is expected to cost RUR 2.1 billion.
Organisation
The State Corporation (SC) Rosatom is a vertically-integrated holding
company which took over Russia's nuclear industry in 2007, from the
Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAEA, also known as Rosatom). This had
been formed from the Ministry for Atomic Energy (Minatom) in 2004, which
had succeeded a Soviet ministry in 1992. The civil parts of the
industry, with a history of over 60 years, are consolidated under JSC
AtomEnergoProm (AEP).
During 2008 there was a major reorganisation or "privatisation" of
nuclear industry entities involving change from Federal State Unitary
Enterprises (FSUE) to Joint Stock Companies (JSC), with most or all of
the shares held by AtomEnergoProm. By mid August 2008, 38 of 55 civil
nuclear FSUEs had been reformed. Some renaming occurred due to new
restrictions on the use of "Russia" or derivatives (eg "Ros") in JSC
names. In mid 2014 eight of the remaining FSUEs were designated ‘federal
nuclear organisation’, including Mayak PA and MCC.
The State Nuclear Energy Corporation Rosatom
(as distinct from the earlier Rosatom agency) is a non-profit company
set up in 2007 to hold all nuclear assets, including more than 250
companies and organisations, on behalf of the state. In particular, it
holds all the shares in the civil holding company AtomEnergoProm (AEP).
It took over the functions of the Rosatom agency and works with the
Ministries of Industry and Energy (MIE) and of Economic Development and
Trade (MEDT) but does not report to any particular ministry. Early in
2012 the government announced that its civil divisions might be
privatised, at least to 49% share in individual entities.
SC Rosatom divisions are:
- Nuclear weapons complex
- Nuclear & Radiation Safety and wastes
- Nuclear Power – Atomenergoprom, Rosenergoatom
- Research & Training
- Atomflot – Arctic fleet of seven nuclear icebreakers and one nuclear merchant ship
But see full list at http://www.rosatom.ru/en/about/enterprises/
AtomEnergoProm
(Atomic Energy Power Corporation, AEP) is the single
vertically-integrated state holding company for Russia's nuclear power
sector, separate from the military complex. It was set up at the end of
2007 to include uranium production, engineering, design, reactor
construction, power generation, isotope production and research
institutes in its several branches, but not used fuel reprocessing or
disposal facilities. It incorporates more than 80 enterprises operating
in all areas of the nuclear fuel cycle. The April 2007 Presidential
decree establishing it specifies nuclear materials, which may be owned
exclusively by the state, lists Russian legal entities allowed to
possess nuclear materials and facilities, existing joint stock companies
to be incorporated into the Atomenergoprom, and lists federal state
unitary enterprises to be corporatized first and incorporated into the
Atomenergoprom at a later stage. Exclusive state ownership of nuclear
materials had been seen as a barrier to competitiveness and other
Russian corporate entities will now be allowed to hold civil-grade
nuclear materials, under state control.
Entities from Atomenergoprom itself down to various third-level
subsidiaries will be joint stock companies eventually. Public investment
in the bottom level operations is envisaged – the joint venture between
Alstom and Atomenergomash to provide large turbines and generators is
cited as an example.
JSC AtomEnergoProm's many entities include the following (most are JSCs):
- ARMZ Uranium Holding Co (JSC AtomRedMetZoloto) – uranium production – owns Russian mine assets,
- Uranium One Holding Co (U1H) – responsible for all foreign uranium mining,
- Techsnabexport (Tenex) – foreign trade in uranium products and services,
- JSC Enrichment & Conversion Complex,
- TVEL – enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication,
- Atomproekt, the new name for VNIPIET (All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering Technology) which since 2013 incorporates St Petersburg Atomenergoproekt (SPbAEP) – design of nuclear power projects, radiochemical plants and waste facilities,
- Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN AEP or NIAEP) – power plant design, from 2012: holding company for ASE. Sometimes now known as NIAEP-ASE. From October 2014 this is the parent company of Moscow Atomenergoproekt (AEP).
- Atomstroyexport (ASE) – construction of nuclear plants abroad, merged with NIAEP in 2012. Sometimes known as NIAEP-ASE. From the end of 2014, Atomenergoprom decided to transfer its shares in JSC Atomenergoproekt and 49% of those in NIAEP to ASE.
- Moscow Atomenergoproekt (AEP) – power plant design, now a subsidiary of NIAEP-ASE.
- Energospetsmontazh – construction and assembly, also repair of nuclear plants.
- Atomenergomash (AEM) – a group of companies building reactors,
- OKBM Afrikantov (formerly just OKBM – Experimental Design Bureau of Machine-building – Mashinostroyeniya) at Nizhny Novgorod- reactor design and construction,
- OKB Gidropress (Experimental Design Bureau pressurised water – Hydropress) at Podolsk near Moscow – PWR reactor design,
- JSC Rosenergoatom (briefly Energoatom) – responsible for construction and operation of nuclear power generation,
- Rusatom Overseas – responsible for implementing non fuel-cycle projects in foreign markets,
- Rusatom Service – coordination of servicing nuclear plants abroad,
- Atomenergoremont – maintenance and upgrading of nuclear power plants,
- Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering (NIKIET) at Moscow – power plant design (originally: submarine power plants)
- Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (CDBME) of the Russian Shipbuilding Agency – involved in some reactor design.
- Uranium One Holding Co (U1H) – responsible for all foreign uranium mining,
- Techsnabexport (Tenex) – foreign trade in uranium products and services,
- JSC Enrichment & Conversion Complex,
- TVEL – enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication,
- Atomproekt, the new name for VNIPIET (All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering Technology) which since 2013 incorporates St Petersburg Atomenergoproekt (SPbAEP) – design of nuclear power projects, radiochemical plants and waste facilities,
- Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN AEP or NIAEP) – power plant design, from 2012: holding company for ASE. Sometimes now known as NIAEP-ASE. From October 2014 this is the parent company of Moscow Atomenergoproekt (AEP).
- Atomstroyexport (ASE) – construction of nuclear plants abroad, merged with NIAEP in 2012. Sometimes known as NIAEP-ASE. From the end of 2014, Atomenergoprom decided to transfer its shares in JSC Atomenergoproekt and 49% of those in NIAEP to ASE.
- Moscow Atomenergoproekt (AEP) – power plant design, now a subsidiary of NIAEP-ASE.
- Energospetsmontazh – construction and assembly, also repair of nuclear plants.
- Atomenergomash (AEM) – a group of companies building reactors,
- OKBM Afrikantov (formerly just OKBM – Experimental Design Bureau of Machine-building – Mashinostroyeniya) at Nizhny Novgorod- reactor design and construction,
- OKB Gidropress (Experimental Design Bureau pressurised water – Hydropress) at Podolsk near Moscow – PWR reactor design,
- JSC Rosenergoatom (briefly Energoatom) – responsible for construction and operation of nuclear power generation,
- Rusatom Overseas – responsible for implementing non fuel-cycle projects in foreign markets,
- Rusatom Service – coordination of servicing nuclear plants abroad,
- Atomenergoremont – maintenance and upgrading of nuclear power plants,
- Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering (NIKIET) at Moscow – power plant design (originally: submarine power plants)
- Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (CDBME) of the Russian Shipbuilding Agency – involved in some reactor design.
Electricity:
JSC Rosenergoatom is the only Russian organization
primarily acting as a utility operating nuclear power plants. It was
established in 1992 and reorganized in 2001 and then in 2008 as an open
JSC. From December 2011 JSC Atomenergoprom holds 96% of the shares, and
SC Rosatom (which owns Atomenergoprom) holds 4%. Rosenergoatom owns all
nuclear power plants, both operating and under construction.
InterRAO UES was formerly a joint venture of
Rosenergoatom and RAO UES, the utility which was broken up in mid 2008.
It is now 57.3% owned by Rosatom and focused on electricity generation
in areas such as Armenia and the Kaliningrad part of Russia, as the
country's exporter and importer of electricity. It has 8 GWe of
generating plant of its own and plans to increase this to 30 GWe by
2015, with the Baltic nuclear plant at Kaliningrad as an early priority.
It heads a group of over 20 companies located in 14 countries,
involving 18 GWe of capacity. Inter RAO-WorleyParsons (IRWP, with Inter
RAO 51%) was set up in mid 2010 to work on the transfer of power
engineering technology into Inter RAO's market and to promote Inter
RAO's projects oversees.
Engineering and general designers
In July 2008 the St Petersburg, Moscow and Nizhny-Novgorod divisions
of Atomernergoproekt were converted to joint stock companies, with all
shares held by Atomenergoprom. The first two are engineering companies
and general designers of nuclear power plants mainly using VVER reactors
developed by Gidropress.
Atomproekt at St
Petersburg was formed from the 2013 merger of St Petersburg
Atomenergoproekt (SPbAEP) with the All-Russia Science Research and
Design Institute of Integrated Power Engineering Technology – VNIPIET
(established in 1933) to create the country’s largest nuclear power
plant design and development company. It has a particular focus on fast
reactors as well as VVER. The company supports all stages of the nuclear
fuel cycle, from a decision to start a nuclear power plant construction
project to decommissioning. On completion of the merger in mid-2014 it
became Atomproekt. Earlier, SPbAEP worked closely with Atomstroyexport
(ASE) on exported plants. Atomproekt is responsible for Leningrad II
plant, Beloyarsk, Baltic, and the Belarus, Tianwan, Hanhikivi and Paks
II plants.
Atomproekt is also much involved in fuel fabrication and radioactive
waste management. It is closely involved with the Proryv project for
closed fuel cycle with fast reactors.
Atomenergoproekt (formerly
Moscow AEP) established in 1986 is a major general design and
engineering company for nuclear power plants. It may also function as
general contractor. In October 2014 it became a subsidiary of
NIAEP-ASE.
Its version of the AES-2006 evolved to the VVER-TOI, which Rosatom
says is planned to be standard for new projects in Russia and
worldwide. It is general designer of Novovoronezh II, being built by
NIAEP-ASE, Kursk II, Smolensk II as well as Kudankulam in India and
Akkuyu in Turkey. It has been responsible for Kursk and Smolensk RBMK
plants, Novovoronezh I, Balakovo, and the Zaporozhe, Temelin and Bushehr
plants.
Plant construction
NIAEP-ASE: Nizhny-Novgorod Engineering Company
Atomenergoproekt (NIAEP) set up in 1951 is building plants at Rostov
(Volgodonsk) and Kalinin. NIAEP in March 2012 was merged with
Atomstroyexport (ASE) to bolster the latter's engineering capability.
(Earlier it had linked with ASE to utilize some 1980s VVER equipment not
required for Bulgaria's proposed Belene plant, and built it at
Kalinin.) NIAEP became a holding company for JSC ASE, but NIAEP-ASE was being used as acronym to late 2014.
Atomstroyexport (ASE), established by merger in
1998, emerged from the reorganisation as a closed joint stock company
owned by Atomenergoprom (50.2%) and Gazprombank (49.8%, it is 69% owned
by Gazprom). Early in 2009 the Atomenergoprom and related equity was
increased to 89.3% by additional share issue, leaving Gazprombank with
10.7%. It was responsible for export of nuclear plants to China, Iran,
India and Bulgaria. In 2009 German-based Nukem Technologies GmbH, which
specialises in decommissioning, waste management and engineering
services, became a 100% subsidiary of Atomstroyexport. In 2012 ASE
merged with Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN AEP or NIAEP) to form
NIAEP-ASE.
Rosatom, through NIAEP-ASE, offers both EPC (engineering,
procurement, construction) and BOO (build, own, operate) contracts for
overseas nuclear power plant projects, the latter involving at least 25%
Rosatom equity. Rosatom offers various kinds of project financing,
including attraction of strategic and institutional investors and debt
financing. Some project finance is covered by international agreements
involving either export credits, Russian government credit or the
participation of Russian state banks. It says that lending rates can be
optimized for nuclear power plant projects, and up to 85% of the finance
may be provided by government credit from Russia.
In November 2014 the projects in hand on the company website were:
Rostov 3&4, Baltic 1&2, Nizhny Novgorod 1&2, Kursk II, all
in Russia, and Kudankulam 1&2, Tianwan 3&4, Akkuyu 1-4,
Ostrovets 1&2, Bushehr 1, Ninh Thuan 1&2. In mid-2013 Rooppur in
Bangladesh was added (but then removed). It is also building a large
(3x400 MWe) gas combined-cycle plant: South Ural/Yuzhnouralskaya GRES-2
units 1&2.
NIAEP (post 2012 merger) has a design institute in Nizhny-Novgorod,
project management offices in Nizhny-Novgorod, Moscow and St Petersburg,
and 11 representative offices in Europe and Asia to oversee projects.
Other
Rusatom Service was set up in October 2011 by
Rosenergoatom (51%), Atomenergomash (16%), Gidropress (16%) and
Atomtekhenergo (16%). It will undertake maintenance and repair as well
as modernization of Russian-design nuclear power plants abroad, applying
Russian domestic experience. The company is also to work in the area of
technical consultancy, training and retraining of plant personnel. The
market is estimated at EUR 1.5 billion per year, rising to EUR 2.5
billion by 2020, including western-design reactors by then.
OTsKS – Rosatom Branch Centre for Capital
Construction – was set up in August 2012 to manage its capital
investment program in Russia and internationally. It oversees
regulatory, technical and legal aspects of capital construction
projects, as well as estimating costs and developing schedules. It also
provides training for customer-contractors and general contractors such
as NIAEP-ASE as well as the personnel of construction companies. Rosatom
subsidiary companies had to complete their transition to new rules on
planning capital construction projects developed by OTsKS, by the end of
2013. Its main customer is Rosenergoatom which is building about ten
units in Russia, with 12 more planned by 2025.
AKME-engineering was established in 2009 to
implement the SVBR-100 project at Dimitrovgrad, including design,
construction and commercial operation. It is a JV of Rosatom and JSC
Irkutskenergo, and is licensed for construction and operation of nuclear
plants by Rostechnadzor.
The Federal Centre of Nuclear and Radiation Safety (FC NRS)
is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in 2007 by Rosatom as part
of its End-of-Life (EOL) Management Division. The Pilot Demonstration
Center for Decommissioning of Uranium-Graphite Reactors (PDC UGR) is to
become part of it, rather than staying with SCC.
The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management (NO RAO)
is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in 2012 responsible for
waste management and disposal. It is the National Operator for handling
all nuclear waste materials, with functions and tariffs set by
government.
FSUE RosRAO
provides commercial back-end radwaste and decommissioning services for
intermediate- and low-level wastes as well as handling non-nuclear
radwaste. It commenced operation in 2009 under a temporary arrangement
pending finalisation of regulations under the new legislation. It
incorporates Radon, which was the organisation responsible for medical
and industrial radioactive wastes, and now has branches in each of seven
federal districts. RosRAO’s Far East Centre (DalRAO) operates long-term
storage for over 70 submarine reactor compartments, pending their
recycling. Its northern centre is SevRAO, in the Murmansk region, is
engaged in remediation of the sites of Navy Northern Fleet bases, and
dismantling of retired nuclear-powered naval ships and submarines.
RosRAO is envisaged as an international operator. RosRAO became part of
Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division (LC BED) in 2013.
In 2013 Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division (LC
BED) was set up to incorporate entities hitherto the responsibility of
FC NRS: the Mining and Chemical Combine (MCC), RosRAO, SPA V.G.Khlopin
Radium Institute and Radon. FC NRS will continue involvement with the
new division.
FSUE Atomflot is a Rosatom division operating the nuclear powered icebreakers and merchant ship in Arctic waters.
Situation and Crisis Centre of Rosatom was established in 1998 acts
as the Operator of the Nuclear Industry System for Prevention and
Management of Emergencies. It keeps track of nuclear enterprises and
transport of nuclear materials.
SNIIP Systematom is an engineering company for nuclear and radiation
safety systems. It will supply the equipment for automated radiation
monitoring systems (ARMS) at the Kalinin 1 nuclear unit in Russia and
Tianwan 4 in China.
The VI Lenin All-Russian Electrotechnical Institute and its
affiliated Experimental Plant were made FSUEs by presidential decree in
March 2015, and removed from the Ministry of Education & Science.
Supply chain entities
Atomenergomash (AEM) was set up in 2006 to control the supply chain
for major reactor components. After an equity issue in 2009 it was 63.6%
owned by AEP, 14.7% by TVEL and 7.6% by Tenex, and 7% by AEM-finance.
In 2009 AEM had sales of RUR 16 billion. AEM companies claim to have
provided equipment in 13% of nuclear plants worldwide.
The former main nuclear fabrication company, Atommash, was
established in 1973 at Volgodonsk and went bankrupt in 1995. It was then
profoundly restructured and resurrected as EMK-Atommash before becoming
part of JSC Energomash, a major diversified engineering company
apparently independent of Rosatom/AEP. Atommash largely moved away from
nuclear equipment, though Atomenergomash (subsidiary of AEP) was keen to
resuscitate it as an alternative heavy equipment supplier to OMZ. In
2009 Atomenergomash was doing due diligence on the Energomash group,
apparently with a view to taking a half share in it, "to create
competition in the segment of monopoly suppliers of long-lead nuclear
equipment.” In October 2014 AEM-Assets, a subsidiary of Rosatom,
received approval for a full takeover, acquiring the production assets
and a 100% interest in Energomash LLC (Volgodonsk)-Atommash, the forging
company, and Energomash JSC (Volgodonsk)-Atommash, which provides
services related to the lease of equipment and immovable property.
Objedinennye Mashinostroitelnye Zavody (OMZ – Uralmash-Izhora Group)
itself is the largest heavy industry company in Russia, and has a wide
shareholding. Izhorskiye Zavody, the country's main reactor component
supplier, became part of the company in 1999, and Skoda Steel and Skoda
JS in Czech Republic joined in 2003. OMZ is expected to produce the
forgings for all new domestic AES-2006 model VVER-1200 nuclear reactors
(four per year from 2016), plus exports. At present Izhora can produce
the heavy forgings required for Russia's VVER-1000 reactors at the rate
of two per year, and it is manufacturing components for the first two
Leningrad II VVER-1200 units.
The Power Machines Company (JSC Silovye Mashiny Concern, or Silmash)
was established in 2000 and brought together a number of older
enterprises including Leningradsky Metallichesky Zavod (LMZ),
Elektrosila, Turbine Blades Factory, etc. Siemens holds 26% of the
stock. Silmash makes steam turbines up to 1200 MWe, including the 1000
MWe turbines for Atomstroyexport projects in China, India and Iran, and
has supplied equipment to 57 countries worldwide. It is making 1200 MWe
turbine generators for the Leningrad and Novovoronezh II nuclear plants.
A significant amount of Power Machines' business is in Asia.
The Russian EnergyMachineBuilding Company (REMCO) was established as a
closed joint stock company in Russia in 2008, amalgamating some smaller
firms, with half the shares owned by Atomenergomash. It is one of the
largest manufacturers of complex heat-exchange equipment for nuclear and
thermal power plants, oil and gas industry. Its subsidiaries include
JSC Machine-Building Plant ZiO-Podolsk and JSC Engineering Company
ZIOMAR.
JSC Machine Building Plant ZiO-Podolsk is one of the largest
manufacturers designing and producing equipment for nuclear power and
other plants. It has made equipment, including steam generators and heat
exchangers, for all nuclear plants in the former USSR. It is increasing
capacity to four nuclear equipment sets per year. It appears to be 51%
owned by REMCO. It is making the reactor pressure vessel and other main
equipment for the BN-800 fast reactor at Beloyarsk as well as steam
generators for Novovoronezh, Kalinin 4, Leningrad and Belene.
In April 2007 a joint venture company to manufacture the turbine and
generator portions of new nuclear power plants was announced by French
engineering group Alstom and JSC Atomenergomash. The 49:51
Alstom-Atomenergomash LLC (AAEM) joint venture, in which both parties
would invest EUR 200 million, was established at Podolsk, near Moscow.
It includes the technology transfer of Alstom's state of the art
Arabelle steam turbine and generator (available up to 1800 MWe) tailored
to Russian VVER technology. In 2010 AAEM signed an agreement with Inter
RAO-Worley Parsons (IRWP) to establish an engineering consortium to
design turbine islands for Russia's VVER reactor-based nuclear power
plants. At the same time Alstom signed strategic agreements with major
Russian energy companies to jointly provide power generation products
and services for Russia's power industry in hydro, nuclear and thermal
power generation and electricity transmission. Another agreement,
between Alstom Power and Rosatom, details plans to set up a local
facility to manufacture Alstom's Arabelle steam turbines for nuclear
plants. In 2011 Petrozavodskmash joined the group, and its site is more
suitable for shipping large components, so in 2011 the company decided
to build its factory for Arabelle manufacture at Petrozavodsk, in
Karelia, by 2015 instead of continuing with ZiO-Podolsk near Moscow.
First production was expected in 2013 with output reaching three 1200
MWe turbine and generator sets per year in 2016. The Baltic plant will
be the first customer, in a RUB 35 billion order, with Russian content
about 50%. This will increase to over 70% for subsequent projects.
In September 2007 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) signed an
agreement with Russia's Ural Turbine Works (UTZ) to manufacture, supply
and service gas and steam turbines in the Russian market. Under the
agreement, MHI, Japan's biggest machinery maker, will license its
manufacturing technologies for large gas turbines and steam turbines to
UTZ – part of the Renova Group. The agreement also calls for a joint
venture to be established in Russia to provide after-sales service.
Russia has developed several generations of centrifuges for uranium
enrichment. Ninth-generation machines are now being deployed, 10th
generation ones re being developed, and 11th generation are being
designed. The 9th generation units are said to be 1.5 times as efficient
as 8th. Overall since 1960, the machine weight, size and power
characteristics have remained practically unchanged, but their
efficiency was raised more than six-fold, design service life was
increased from 3 to 30 years, and the SWU cost was reduced “several
times”. Centrifuges for China under a US$ 1 billion contract are
manufactured at both Tocmash and Kovrov Mechanical plant, both of which
will become part of the Fuel Company being established by TVEL. Russia
intends to export its centrifuges to the USA and SE Asia.
For more up to date information on heavy engineering, see paper on Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants.
Early in 2006 Rosenergoatom set up a subsidiary to supply floating
nuclear power plants (BNPPs) ranging in size from 70 to 600 MWe. The
plants are designed by OKBM in collaboration with others. The pilot
plant, now under construction, is 70 MWe plus heat output and
incorporates two KLT-40S reactors based on those in icebreakers.
Regulation and safety
Two main laws govern the use of nuclear power: the Federal Law on the
Use of Atomic Energy (November 1995 and Federal Law on Radiation Safety
of Populations (January 1996). These are supported by federal laws
including those on environmental protection (2002) and the Federal Law
on Radioactive Waste Management (2011).
Rostechnadzor (rostekhnadzor.com and www.gosnadzor.ru)
is the regulator, set up (as GAN) in 1992, reporting direct to the
President. Because of the links with military programs, a culture of
secrecy pervaded the old Soviet nuclear power industry. After the 1986
Chernobyl accident, changes were made and a nuclear safety committee
established. The State Committee for Nuclear and Radiation Safety –
Gosatomnadzor (GAN) succeeded this in 1992, being responsible for
licensing, regulation and operational safety of all facilities, for
safety in transport of nuclear materials, and for nuclear materials
accounting. Its inspections can result in legal charges against
operators. However, on some occasions when it suspended operating
licences in the 1990s, Minatom successfully overrode this. In 2004 GAN
was incorporated into the Federal Ecological, Technological & Atomic
Supervisory Service, Rostechnadzor, which has a very wide environmental
and safety mandate. It has executive authority for development and
implementation of public policy and legal regulation in the
environmental field, as well as in the field of technological and
nuclear supervision. It controls and supervises natural resources
development, industrial safety, nuclear safety (except for weapons),
safety of electrical networks, hydraulic structures and industrial
explosives. It licences nuclear energy facilities, and supervises
nuclear and radiation safety of nuclear and radiologically hazardous
installations, including supervision of nuclear materials accounting,
control and physical protection. A 2011 overview is on IAEA website.
Safety has evidently been improving at Russian nuclear power plants.
In 1993 there were 29 incidents rating level 1 and higher on the INES
scale, in 1994 there were nine, and since then to 2003, no more than
four. Also, up until 2001 many employees received annual radiation doses
of over 20 mSv, but since 2002 very few have done so.
In 2008 Rostechnadzor was transferred to the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the Environment, but this was reversed in mid 2010 and it
was brought back under direct control of the government and focused on
civil nuclear energy. Following other changes in federal legislation, an
IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission in 2013 said
that Rostechnadzor had made "significant progress" in its development
since 2009 and had “become an effective independent regulator with a
professional staff”. Rostechnadzor undertook to make the final IRRS
report early in 2014 public.
The 1996 Federal Law on Radiation Safety of Populations is administered by the Federal Ministry of Health.
Rosprirodnadzor, the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources (www.rpn.gov.ru) needs to give environmental approval to new projects, through its State Environmental Commission.
Exports: fuel cycle
Soviet exports of enrichment services began in 1973, and Russia has
strongly continued this, along with exports of radioisotopes. After
1990, uranium exports began, through Techsnabexport (Tenex).
In 2009 Tenex signed long-term enrichment services contacts with
three US utilities – AmerenUE, Luminant and Pacific Gas & Electric –
and one in Japan – Chubu. The contracts cover supply from 2014 to 2020.
Then it contracted to supply enriched uranium product over the same
period with Exelon, the largest US nuclear utility. By the end of 2010,
the value of contracts with US companies rose to about $4 billion,
beyond the diluted ex-military uranium already being supplied to 2013
from Russian weapons stockpiles. In 2012, Tenex supplied about 45% of
world demand for enrichment services and 17% of that for fabricated
fuel. It exported fuel for 34 reactors as well as supplying 33 Russian
ones.
This US-Russian "Megatonnes to Megawatts" program supplies about 15%
of world reactor requirements for enriched uranum and is part of a US$
12 billion deal in 1994 between US and Russian governments, with a
non-proliferation as well as commercial rationale. USEC and Tenex are
the executive agents for the program. However, Rosatom confirmed in mid
2006 that no follow-on program of selling Russian high-enriched uranium
from military stockpiles was anticipated once this program concludes in
2013. The 20-year program is equivalent to about 140,000 to 150,000
tonnes of natural uranium, and has supplied about half of US needs. By
September 2010 it was 80% complete.
TVEL in 2010 won a tender to construct a fuel manufacturing plant in
Ukraine, against competition from US company Westinghouse. Russia's
long-term contract to supply fuel to the Ukrainian market is set to run
until the end of the useful life of existing Ukrainian reactors, perhaps
up to 35 years.
TVEL in 2014 secured contracts with foreign partners that exceeded $3
billion, keeping its ten-year order book at more than $10 billion.
Contracts were signed with Finland, Hungary and Slovakia, as well as for
research reactors in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and
Uzbekistan. TVEL said it has 17% of the global nuclear fuel supply
market.
Rosatom has claimed to be able to undercut world prices for nuclear fuel and services by some 30%.
It was also pushing ahead with plans to store and probably reprocess
foreign spent fuel, and earlier the Russian parliament overwhelmingly
supported a change in legislation to allow this. The proposal involved
some 10% of the world's spent fuel over ten years, or perhaps up to
20,000 tonnes of spent fuel, to raise US$ 20 billion, two thirds of
which would be invested in expanding civil nuclear power. In July 2001
President Putin signed into effect three laws including one to allow
this import of spent nuclear fuel (essentially an export of services,
since Russia would be paid for it).
The President also set up a special commission to approve and oversee
any spent fuel accepted, with five members each from the Duma, the
Council, the government and presidential nominees, chaired by Dr Zhores
Alferov, a parliamentarian, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of
Sciences and Nobel Prize physicist. This scheme was progressed in 2005
when the Duma ratified the Vienna Convention on civil liability for
nuclear damage. However in July 2006 Rosatom announced it would not
proceed with taking any foreign-origin used fuel, and the whole scheme
lapsed.
Exports: general, plants and projects
Russia is engaged with international markets in nuclear technology,
well beyond its traditional eastern European client states. An important
step up in this activity was in August 2011 when Rosatom established Rusatom Overseas
company, with authorized capital of RUR 1 billion. It is responsible
for implementing non fuel-cycle projects in foreign markets, though
apparently it also promotes products, services and technologies of the
Russian nuclear industry generally to the world markets. According to
Rosatom, "Rusatom Overseas acts as an integrator of Rosatom's complex
solutions in nuclear energy, manages the promotion of the integrated
offer and the development of Russian nuclear business abroad, as well as
working to create a worldwide network of Rosatom marketing offices." It
also "acts as a developer of Rosatom's foreign projects, which are
implemented with the build-own-operate (BOO) structure." One of the
first projects that Rosatom is implementing using the BOO structure is
the Akkuyu plant in Turkey. Rusatom plans to open some 20 offices around
the world by 2015, as a market research front and shop window for all
Rosatom products and services.
Rosatom in its 2012 annual report said that its portfolio of foreign
orders was worth a total $66.5 billion, up 30.7% compared with the
previous year. It aimed to increase these orders to $72 billion in 2013.
Its long-term strategy, approved by its board in late 2011, calls for
foreign operations to account for half of its business by 2030. It aims
to hold at least one-third of the global enrichment services market by
then, as well as 5% of the market for pressurized water reactor (PWR)
fuel. The corporation said that it is "actively strengthening its
position abroad for the construction of nuclear power plants." Rosatom
had a portfolio of export orders for 19 nuclear power reactors in 2012,
but aims to have orders for the construction of some 30 power reactors
outside of Russia by 2030. Rosatom's foreign order book rose by RUR 34
billion to reach RUR 101.4 billion by the end of 2014.
Atomstroyexport (ASE, now NIAEP-ASE) has had three reactor
construction projects abroad, all involving VVER-1000 units. It is
embarking upon and seeking more, as detailed in Nuclear Power in Russia companion paper.
Since 2006 Rosatom has actively pursued nuclear cooperation deals in
South Africa, Namibia, Chile and Morocco as well as with Egypt, Algeria,
Jordan, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Kuwait. In 2012 an agreement with Japan
was concluded.
Tenex has also entered agreements (now taken over by ARMZ) to mine
and explore for uranium in South Africa (with local companies) and
Canada (with Cameco).
In September 2008 ARMZ signed a MOU with a South Korean consortium
headed by Kepco on strategic cooperation in developing uranium projects.
This included joint exploration, mining and sales of natural uranium in
the Russian Federation and possibly beyond, but no more has been heard
of it.
International Collaboration
Russia is engaged with international markets in nuclear energy, well
beyond its traditional eastern European client states. In June 2011
Rosatom announced that it was establishing Rusatom Overseas company, a
new structure to be responsible for implementing non fuel-cycle projects
in foreign markets. It could act as principal contractor and also owner
of foreign nuclear capacity under build-own-operate (BOO) arrangements.
It is vigorously pursing markets in developing countries and is
establishing eight offices abroad.
President Putin's Global Nuclear Infrastructure Initiative was
announced early in 2006. This is in line with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) 2005 proposal for Multilateral Approaches to the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle (MNA) and with the US Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP). The head of Rosatom said that he envisages Russia
hosting four types of international nuclear fuel cycle service centres (INFCCs)
as joint ventures financed by other countries. These would be secure
and maybe under IAEA control. The first is an International Uranium
Enrichment Centre (IUEC) – one of four or five proposed worldwide (see
separate section). The second would be for reprocessing and storage of
used nuclear fuel. The third would deal with training and certification
of personnel, especially for emerging nuclear states. In this context
there is a need for harmonized international standards, uniform
safeguards and joint international centers. The fourth would be for
R&D and to integrate new scientific achievements.
In March 2008 AtomEnergoProm signed a general framework agreement
with Japan's Toshiba Corporation to explore collaboration in the civil
nuclear power business. The Toshiba partnership is expected to include
cooperation in areas including design and engineering for new nuclear
power plants, manufacturing and maintenance of large equipment, and
"front-end civilian nuclear fuel cycle business". In particular the
construction of an advanced Russian centrifuge enrichment plant in Japan
is envisaged, also possibly one in the USA. The companies say that the
"complementary relations" could lead to the establishment of a strategic
partnership. Toshiba owns 77% of US reactor builder Westinghouse and is
also involved with other reactor technology.
Regarding reactor design, Rosatom has said it is keen to be involved
in international projects for Generation IV reactor development and is
keen to have international participation in fast neutron reactor
development, as well as joint proposals for MOX fuel fabrication.
In April 2007 Red Star, a government-owned design bureau, and US
company Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) agreed to
collaborate on testing Lightbridge's seed and blanket fuel assemblies at
the Kurchatov Institute with a view to using thorium-based fuel in
VVER-1000 reactors. (see Thorium paper for details )
In 2006 the former working relationship with Kazakhstan in nuclear
fuel supplies was rebuilt. Kazatomprom has agreed to a major long-term
program of strategic cooperation with Russia in uranium and nuclear fuel
supply, as well as development of small reactors, effectively reuniting
the two countries' interests in future exports of nuclear fuel to
China, Japan, Korea, the USA and Western Europe.
In June 2010 Rosatom signed a major framework agreement with the
French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) covering "nuclear energy
development strategy, nuclear fuel cycle, development of next-generation
reactors, future gas coolant reactor systems, radiation safety and
nuclear material safety, prevention and emergency measures." Much of the
collaboration will be focused on reprocessing and wastes, also
sodium-cooled fast reactors. Subsequently EdF and Rosatom signed a
further cooperation agreement covering R&D, nuclear fuel, and
nuclear power plants - both existing and under construction.
In March 2007 Russia signed a cooperation declaration with the OECD's
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), so that Russia became a regular observer
in all NEA standing technical committees, bringing it much more into the
mainstream of world nuclear industry development. Russia had been
participating for some years in the NEA's work on reactor safety and
nuclear regulation and is hosting an NEA project on reactor vessel
melt-through. This agreement was expected to assist Russia's integration
into the OECD, and in October 2011 Russia made an official request to
join the NEA. It was accepted as the 31st member of the OECD NEA in May
2012, effective from January 2013. Russia will be represented by its
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rosatom, and nuclear regulator
Rostechnadzor.
Over two decades to about 2010 a Russian-US coordinating committee*
was discussing building a GT-MHR prototype at Seversk, primarily for
weapons plutonium disposition. Today OKBM is responsible to
collaboration with China on HTR development, though NIIAR and Kurchatov
Institute are also involved.
* involving SC Rosatom, NIIAR, OKBM, RRC Kurchatov
Institute and VNIINM on the Russian side and NNSA, General Atomics, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory on the US side.
Research & Development
In mid-2009 the Russian government said that it would provide more
than RUR 120 billion (about US$3.89 billion) over 2010 to 2012 for a new
program devoted to R&D on the next generation of nuclear power
plants. It identified three priorities for the nuclear industry:
improving the performance of light water reactors over the next two or
three years, developing a closed fuel cycle based on deployment of fast
reactors in the medium term, and developing nuclear fusion over the long
term. Rosatom said that its 2014 spending on R&D will amount to RUR
27-28 billion (US$ 528 million), about 4.5% of its proceeds. In 2013 it
spent RUR 24 billion, and in 2012 RUR 22.7 billion on R&D.
Many research reactors were constructed in the 1950s and 60s. In 1998
more than 60 non-military research and test reactors were operational
in Russia, plus three in former Soviet republics and eight Russian ones
elsewhere. Most of these use ceramic fuel enriched to 36% or 90% U-235.
Kurchatov Institute
Russia has had substantial R&D on nuclear power for six decades.
The premier establishment for this is the Russian Research Centre
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, set up 1943 as the Laboratory No. 2 of
the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 2010 it joined the Skolkovo project,
an R&D centre set up to rival Silicon Valley in the USA. It has run
twelve research reactors there, six of which are now shut down. The 24
kW F-1 research reactor was started up in December 1946 and has passed
its 60th anniversary in operation. The largest reactor is IR-8, of 8
MWt, used for isotope production.
The Kurchatov Institute has designed nuclear reactors for marine and
space applications, and continues research on HTRs. Since 1995 it has
been involved internationally with accounting, control and physical
protection of nuclear materials. US Lightbridge Corporation's seed and
blanket fuel assemblies are being tested there with a view to using
thorium-based fuel in VVER-1000 reactors.
Kurchatov’s Molten Salt Actinide Recycler and Transmuter (MOSART) is
fuelled only by transuranic fluorides from uranium and MOX LWR used
fuel, without U or Th support. The 2400 MWt reactor has a homogeneous
core of Li-Na-Be or Li-Be fluorides without graphite moderator and has
reduced reprocessing compared with the original US design. Thorium may
also be used, though MOSART is described as a burner-converter rather
than a breeder.
Since 1955 the Institute has hosted the main experimental work on
plasma physics and nuclear fusion, and the first tokamak systems were
developed there. Since 1990, much of its funding comes from
international cooperation and commercial projects.
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI)
The Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI)
is near St Petersburg but associated with the Kurchatov Institute. It
was formerly the B.P. Konstantinov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute
(PIYaF). In 1959 the WWR-M research reactor was put into operation, and
in 1970 a 1 GeV proton synchrocyclotron started up, these continue in
operation. A new 100 MWt high-flux reactor with 25 associated research
facilities, PIK,
is under construction there and achieved criticality in 2012. It uses
27 kg of 90% enriched uranium fuel. Once commissioned around 2015 PIK
will be the most powerful high-flux research beam reactor in Russia, and
the national centre for neutron research.
Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR/ NIIAR)
Russia's State Scientific Centre – Research Institute of Atomic
Reactors (RIAR, or NIIAR) – said to be the biggest nuclear research
centre in Russia, is in Dimitrovgrad (Melekess), in Ulyanovsk county
1300 km SE of Moscow. It was founded in 1956 to host both research and
experimental reactors, and it researches fuel cycle, radiochemicals and
radioactive waste management, as well as producing radionuclides for
medicine and industry. It hosts the main R&D on electrometallurgical
pyroprocessing, especially for fast reactors, and associated
vibropacked fuel technology for these.
RIAR/ NIIAR has the largest materials study laboratory in Eurasia,
used particularly for irradiated fuel.* The complex's major future role
will be in fuel reprocessing. The initial fuel for MBIR is likely to be
from reprocessed BOR-60 fuel, as is that for SVBR-100. In 2014
construction of a new radiochemical research centre for closed fuel
cycles for fast reactors commenced. NIIAR plans to complete the centre
by 2017 as part of the revised federal target program for 2010-2015 and
until 2020. Fuel research at RIAR already includes integration of minor
actinides into FNR closed fuel cycle, nitride fuel (both mononitride and
U-Pu nitride), metallic fuel (U-Pu-Zr, U-Al, U-Be) and RBMK spent fuel
conditioning. It also is working on molten salt fuel – reprocessing and
minor actinide behaviour, though Kurchatov Institute seems to be the
main locus of MSR research.
* In 2010 TerraPower from USA proposed
that RIAR should carry out in-pile tests and post-irradiation
examinations of structural materials and fuel specimens planned for its
travelling-wave reactor. A final agreement was expected in November, but
apparently did not eventuate.
RIAR's first reactor – SM – has been running since 1961 and now
produces radioisotopes. The MIR reactor (1967) has been important in
developing fuel rod designs for power and naval reactors. Russia's only
boiling water reactor, VK-50, operated there.
As well as three other research reactors, the BOR-60* fast reactor is
operated here by RIAR – the world’s only operating fast research
reactor. It started up in 1969 and is to be replaced after then end of
2020 with a 100-150 MWt multi-purpose fast neutron research reactor – MBIR,
with four times the irradiation capacity. This will be a multi-loop
reactor capable of testing lead or lead-bismuth and gas coolants as well
as sodium, simultaneously in three parallel outside loops. It will run
on vibropacked MOX fuel with plutonium content of 38%, produced at RIAR
in existing facilities. A 24% Pu fuel may also be used. RIAR intends to
set up an on-site closed fuel cycle for it, using pyrochemical
reprocessing it has developed at pilot scale. MBIR’s cost was estimated
at RUR 16.4 billion ($454 million) in 2010. It will be the central part
of the International Research Centre at RIAR’s site, costing about $1
billion. In September 2010 Rosatom had said that the MBIR multi-function
fast reactor program would be open to foreign collaboration, in
connection with the IAEA INPRO program, and in June 2013 an agreement
with France and the USA was signed to this end. Rostechnadzor granted a
site licence to RIAR in August 2014, and a construction licence in May
2015, with completion expected in 2020.
*BOR = bystry opytniy reaktor – experimental fast reactor. BOR-60 is licensed to 2015 but will be extended at least five years.
Rosatom is setting up an International Research Centre (IRC) based on
MBIR and is inviting international participation. The full MBIR
research complex is now budgeted at $1 billion, with the Russian budget
already having provided $300 million from the federal target program.
Pre-construction shares of 1% are being offered for $10 million,
allowing involvement in detailed design of irradiation facilities. From
2020 the fee will rise to $36 million per one percent share. RIAR will
be the legal owner of MBIR, performing operational and administrative
functions, while the International Research Centre will be the legal
entity responsible for marketing and research management.
The first 100 MWe Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor (SVBR) from
Gidropress is to be built at RIAR and operated from 2017. It is
designed to use a wide variety of fuels, though the demonstration unit
will initially use uranium enriched to 16.3%. With U-Pu MOX fuel it
would operate in closed cycle. The SVBR-100 could be the first reactor
cooled by heavy metal to be utilized to generate electricity. It is
described by Gidropress as a multi-function reactor, for power, heat or
desalination.
RAIR has established a joint venture with JSC Izotop – Izotop-NIIAR
– to produce Mo-99 at Dimitrovgrad from 2010, using newly-installed
German equipment. This aimed to capture 20% of the world market for
Mo-99 by 2012, and 40% subsequently. In September 2010 JSC Isotop signed
a framework agreement with Canada-based MDS Nordion to explore
commercial opportunities outside Russia on the basis of this JV,
initially over ten years.
Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (FEI/ IPPE)
In 1954 the world's first nuclear powered electricity generator began
operation in the then closed city of Obninsk at the Institute of
Physics and Power Engineering (FEI or IPPE). The AM-1* reactor is
water-cooled and graphite-moderated, with a design capacity of 30 MWt or
5 MWe. It was similar in principle to the plutonium production reactors
in the closed military cities and served as a prototype for other
graphite channel reactor designs including the Chernobyl-type RBMK**
reactors. AM-1 produced electricity until 1959 and was used until 2000
as a research facility and for the production of isotopes. FEI is also
bidding to host the MBIR project.
* AM = atom mirny – peaceful atom
** RBMK = reaktor bolshoi moshchnosty kanalny – high power channel reactor
In the 1950s the FEI at Obninsk was also developing fast breeder
reactors (FBRs), and in 1955 the BR-1* fast neutron reactor began
operating. It produced no power but led directly to the BR-5 which
started up in 1959 with a capacity of 5 MWt which was used to do the
basic research necessary for designing sodium-cooled FBRs. It was
upgraded and modernised in 1973 and then underwent major reconstruction
in 1983 to become the BR-10 with a capacity of 8 MWt which is now used
to investigate fuel endurance, to study materials and to produce
radioisotopes.
* BN = bystry reaktor – fast reactor
Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering (NIKIET)
NIKIET is at concept development stage with a seabed reactor module –
SHELF – a 6 MWe, 28 MWt remotely-operated PWR with low-enriched fuel of
UO2 in aluminium alloy matrix. Fuel cycle is 56 months. The
SHELF module uses an integral reactor with forced and natural
circulation in the primary circuit, in which the core, steam generator,
motor-driven circulation pump and control and protection system drive
are housed in a cylindrical pressure vessel. The reactor and
turbogenerator are in a cylindrical pod about 15 m long and 8 m
diameter, sitting on the sea bed. It is intended as electricity supply
for oil and gas developments in Arctic seas.
In 2010 the government was to allocate RUR 500 million (about US$ 170
million) of federal funds to design a space nuclear propulsion and
generation installation in the megawatt power range. In particular, SC
Rosatom was to get RUR 430 million and Roskosmos (Russian Federal Space
Agency) RUR 70 million to develop it. The work would be undertaken
by the Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering
(NIKIET) in Moscow, based on previous developments including those of
nuclear rocket engines. A conceptual design is expected in 2011, with
the basic design documentation and engineering design to follow in 2012.
Tests are planned for 2018.
Since 2010 NIKIET is also involved with Luch Scientific Production
Association (SPA Luch) and a Belarus organization, the Joint Institute
for Power Engineering and Nuclear Research (Sosny), to design a small
transportable nuclear reactor. The project draws on Sosny’s experience
in designing the Pamir-630D truck-mounted small nuclear reactor, two of
which were built in Belarus from 1976 during the Soviet era. This was a
300-600 kWe HTR reactor using 45% enriched fuel and driving a gas
turbine with nitrogen tetraoxide (N2O4) through the Brayton cycle. After
some operational experience the Pamir project was scrapped in 1986. The
new design will be a similar HTR concept but about 2 MWe.
Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC)
At the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC), Zheleznogorsk the ADE2
reactor was the third nuclear reactor of its kind built in Russia and
came on line in 1964, primarily as a plutonium production unit. However,
from 1995 heat and electricity production became its main purposes. The
ADE-2 operating experience contributed to technological measures to
justify and extend service lives of RBMK reactors at nuclear power
plants, with considerable economic benefit and safety improvement. This
work was given a governmental science and technology award in 2009. ADE2
was closed for final decommissioning in April 2010 after "46 years of
nearly faultless operation".
MCC Zheleznogorsk also produces granulated MOX for vibropacked FNR fuel, using both military and civil plutonium.
Other R&D establishments
PA Mayak at Ozersk is the main production centre for radioisotopes.
The Institute for Reactor Materials (IRM) is at Zarechny, near Beloyarsk.
The All-Russian Scientific and Research Institute for Nuclear Power Plant Operation (VNIIAES)
in Moscow was founded in 1979 to provide scientific and technical
support for operation of nuclear power plants aimed at improving their
safety, reliability and efficiency as well as scientific coordination of
the setup of mass-constructed nuclear power facilities.
In 2009 the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI) was renamed the National Research Nuclear University
and reformed to incorporate a number of other educational
establishments. While partly funded by Rosatom, it is the responsibility
of the Federal Education Agency (Rosobrazovaniye).
Public Opinion
An April 2008 survey carried out by the Levada Centre found that 72%
of Russians were in favour of at least preserving the country's nuclear
power capacity and 41% thought that nuclear was the only alternative to
oil and gas as they deplete. Over half said that they were indignant
about Soviet attempts to cover up news of the Chernobyl accident in
1986.
In April 2010 the Levada Centre polled 1600 adults and found that 37%
supported current levels of nuclear power, 37% favoured its active
development (making 74% positive), while 10% would like a phase-out and
4.3% would prefer to abandon it completely. 42.6% saw no alternative to
nuclear power for replacing depleting oil and gas.
Immediately after the Fukushima accident in 2011 Levada had only 22%
for active development, 30% maintaining current level (ie 52% positive),
27% wanting a phase-out and 12% wanting to abandon it.
In February 2012 a Levada Centre poll showed that 29% of respondents
favoured active development of nuclear power, while 37% support
retaining it at the current level, so 66% positive. Only 15% of
suggested phasing it out, and 7% preferred abandoning nuclear.
The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) took a poll in
April 2012 on the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. It found that
27% of Russians support nuclear power development – up from 16% in 2011,
38 % agree with the present level, and 26% want to reduce it. Nuclear
development is supported by young (32%), highly-educated Russians (31%),
residents of cities with a population of one million and more, large
cities and towns (30-33%). Regarding safety, 35% consider plants of be
sufficiently safe, and 57% don’t.
Non-proliferation
Russia is a nuclear weapons state, and a depository state of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under which a safeguards
agreement has been in force since 1985. The Additional Protocol was
ratified in 2007. However, Russia takes the view that voluntary
application of IAEA safeguards are not meaningful for a nuclear weapons
state and so they are not generally applied. One exception is the BN-600
Beloyarsk-3 reactor which is safeguarded so as to give experience of
such units to IAEA inspectors.
However, this policy is modified in respect to some uranium imports.
All facilities where imported uranium under certain bilateral treaties
goes must be on the list of those eligible and open to international
inspection, and this overrides the voluntary aspect of voluntary offer
agreements. It includes conversion plants, enrichment, fuel fabrication
and nuclear power plants. Also the IUEC at Angarsk will be open to
inspection.
Russia undertook nuclear weapons tests from 1949 to 1990.
Russia's last plutonium production reactor which started up in 1964
was finally closed down in April 2010 - delayed because it also provided
district heating, and replacement plant for this was ready until then.
The reactor may be held in reserve for heating, not dismantled. The
other two such production reactors were closed in 2008. All three
closures are in accordance with a 2003 US-Russia agreement.
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
The Soviet Union also used 116 nuclear explosions (81 in Russia) for
geological research, creating underground gas storage, boosting oil and
gas production and excavating reservoirs and canals. Most were in the
3-10 kiloton range and all occurred 1965-88.
Appendix:
Background: Soviet nuclear culture
In the 1950s and 1960s Russia seemed to be taking impressive steps to
contest world leadership in civil development of nuclear energy. It had
developed two major reactor designs, one from military plutonium
production technology (the light water cooled graphite moderated reactor
– RBMK), and one from naval propulsion units, very much as in USA (the
VVER series - pressurised, water cooled and moderated). An ambitious
plant, Atommash, to mass produce the latter design was taking shape near
Volgodonsk, construction of numerous nuclear plants was in hand and the
country had many skilled nuclear engineers.
But a technological arrogance developed, in the context of an
impatient Soviet establishment. Then Atommash sunk into the Volga
sediments, Chernobyl tragically vindicated western reactor design
criteria, and the political structure which was not up to the task of
safely utilising such technology fell apart. Atommash had been set up to
produce eight sets of nuclear plant equipment each year (reactor
pressure vessels, steam generators, refueling machines, pressurizers,
service machinery – a total of 250 items). In 1981 it manufactured the
first VVER-1000 pressure vessel, which was shipped to South Ukraine NPP.
Later, its products were supplied to Balakovo, Smolensk (RBMK), and
Kalinin in Russia, and Zaporozhe, Rovno and Khmelnitsky plants in
Ukraine. By 1986 Atommash had produced 14 pressure vessels (of which
five have remained at the factory), instead of the eight per year
intended. Then Chernobyl put the whole nuclear industry into a long
standby. Russia was disgraced technologically, and this was exacerbated
by a series of incidents in its nuclear-propelled navy contrasting with a
near-impeccable safety record in the US Navy.
An early indication of the technological carelessness was substantial
pollution followed by a major accident at Mayak Chemical Combine (then
known as Chelyabinsk-40) near Kyshtym in 1957. The failure of the
cooling system for a tank storing many tonnes of dissolved nuclear waste
resulted in a non-nuclear explosion having a force estimated at about
75 tonnes of TNT (310 GJ). This killed 200 people and released some 740
PBq of radioactivity, affecting thousands more. Up to 1951 the Mayak
plant had dumped its wastes into the Techa River, whose waters
ultimately flow into the Ob River and Arctic Ocean. Then they were
disposed of into Lake Karachay until at least 1953, when a storage
facility for high-level wastes was built – the source of the 1957
accident. Finally, a 1967 duststorm picked up a lot of radioactive
material from the dry bed of Lake Karachay and deposited it on to the
surrounding province. The outcome of these three events made some 26,000
square kilometres the most radioactively-polluted area on Earth by some
estimates, comparable with Chernobyl.
After Chernobyl there was a significant change of culture in the
Russian civil nuclear establishment, at least at the plant level, and
this change was even more evident in the countries of eastern Europe who
saw the opportunity for technological emancipation from Russia. By the
early 1990s a number of western assistance programs were in place which
addressed safety issues and helped to alter fundamentally the way things
were done in the eastern bloc, including Russia itself. Design and
operating deficiencies were tackled, and a safety culture started to
emerge. At the same time some R&D programs were suspended.
Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Association
of Nuclear Operators contributed strongly to huge gains in safety and
reliability of Soviet-era nuclear plants – WANO having come into
existence as a result of Chernobyl. In the first two years of WANO's
existence, 1989-91, operating staff from every nuclear plant in the
former Soviet Union visited plants in the west on technical exchange,
and western personnel visited every FSU plant. A great deal of ongoing
plant-to-plant cooperation, and subsequently a voluntary peer review
program, grew out of these exchanges.
Sources:
Prof V.Ivanov, WNA Symposium 2001, Prof A.Gagarinski and Mr A.Malyshev, WNA Symposium 2002.
Josephson, Paul R, 1999, Red Atom - Russia's nuclear power program from Stalin to today.
Minatom 2000, Strategy of Nuclear Power Development in Russia,
O. Saraev, paper at WNA mid-term meeting in Moscow, May 2003.
Rosenergoatom Bulletin 2002, esp. M.Rogov paper.
Perera, Judith 2003, Nuclear Power in the Former USSR, McCloskey, UK.
Kamenskikh, I, 2005, paper at WNA Symposium.
Kirienko, S. 2006, paper at World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, April and WNA Symposium, Sept.
Shchedrovitsky, P. 2007, paper at WNA Symposium, Sept.
Panov et al 2006, Floating Power Sources Based on Nuclear reactor Plants
Rosenergoatom website
Rosatom website
nuclear.ru
OECD NEA & IAEA, 2012, Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand – 'Red Book'
Rybachenov, V. 2012, Disposition of Excess Weapons-grade Plutonium – problems and prospects, Centre for Arms Control, Energy & Environmental Studies.
Prof V.Ivanov, WNA Symposium 2001, Prof A.Gagarinski and Mr A.Malyshev, WNA Symposium 2002.
Josephson, Paul R, 1999, Red Atom - Russia's nuclear power program from Stalin to today.
Minatom 2000, Strategy of Nuclear Power Development in Russia,
O. Saraev, paper at WNA mid-term meeting in Moscow, May 2003.
Rosenergoatom Bulletin 2002, esp. M.Rogov paper.
Perera, Judith 2003, Nuclear Power in the Former USSR, McCloskey, UK.
Kamenskikh, I, 2005, paper at WNA Symposium.
Kirienko, S. 2006, paper at World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, April and WNA Symposium, Sept.
Shchedrovitsky, P. 2007, paper at WNA Symposium, Sept.
Panov et al 2006, Floating Power Sources Based on Nuclear reactor Plants
Rosenergoatom website
Rosatom website
nuclear.ru
OECD NEA & IAEA, 2012, Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand – 'Red Book'
Rybachenov, V. 2012, Disposition of Excess Weapons-grade Plutonium – problems and prospects, Centre for Arms Control, Energy & Environmental Studies.
IAEA ARIS, Sept 2012, Status of Small and Medium-sized Reactor designs.
Nuclear Power in Russia
(Updated 29 May 2015)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Russia--Nuclear-Power/
- Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for much expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology
- Efficiency of nuclear generation in Russia has increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. Over 20 nuclear power reactors are confirmed or planned for export construction.
- Exports of nuclear goods and services are a major Russian policy and economic objective.
- Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology.
Russia's first nuclear power plant, and the first in the world to
produce electricity, was the 5 MWe Obninsk reactor, in 1954. Russia's
first two commercial-scale nuclear power plants started up in 1963-64,
then in 1971-73 the first of today's production models were
commissioned. By the mid-1980s Russia had 25 power reactors in
operation, but the nuclear industry was beset by problems. The Chernobyl
accident led to a resolution of these, as outlined in the Appendix.
Rosenergoatom is the only Russian utility operating nuclear power
plants. Its ten nuclear plants have the status of branches. It was
established in 1992 and was reconstituted as a utility in 2001.
Between the 1986 Chernobyl accident and mid-1990s, only one nuclear
power station was commissioned in Russia, the four-unit Balakovo, with
unit 3 being added to Smolensk. Economic reforms following the collapse
of the Soviet Union meant an acute shortage of funds for nuclear
developments, and a number of projects were stalled. But by the late
1990s exports of reactors to Iran, China and India were negotiated and
Russia's stalled domestic construction program was revived as far as
funds allowed.
Around 2000 nuclear construction revived and Rostov 1 (also known as
Volgodonsk 1), the first of the delayed units, started up in 2001,
joining 21 GWe already on the grid. This greatly boosted morale in the
Russian nuclear industry. It was followed by Kalinin 3 in 2004, Rostov 2
in 2010 and Kalinin 4 in 2011.
By 2006 the government's resolve to develop nuclear power had firmed
and there were projections of adding 2-3 GWe per year to 2030 in Russia
as well as exporting plants to meet world demand for some 300 GWe of new
nuclear capacity in that time frame.
In February 2010 the government approved the federal target program
designed to bring a new technology platform for the nuclear power
industry based on fast reactors. Rosatom's long-term strategy up to 2050
involves moving to inherently safe nuclear plants using fast reactors
with a closed fuel cycle. It envisages nuclear providing 45-50% of
electricity at that time, with the share rising to 70-80% by the end of
the century. In June 2010 the government approved plans for 173 GWe of
new generating capacity by 2030, 43.4 GWe of this being nuclear.
Apart from adding capacity, utilisation of existing plants has
improved markedly. In the 1990s capacity factors averaged around 60%,
but they have steadily improved since and in 2010 and 2011 were above
81%. Balakovo was the best plant in 2011 with 92.5%.
Electricity supply in Russia
Russia's electricity supply, formerly centrally controlled by RAO
Unified Energy System (UES)*, faces a number of acute constraints.
First, demand is rising strongly after more than a decade of stagnation,
secondly some 50 GWe of generating plant (more than a quarter of it) in
the European part of Russia has come to the end of its design life, and
thirdly Gazprom has cut back on the very high level of natural gas
supplies for electricity generation because it can make about five times
as much money by exporting the gas to the west (27% of EU gas comes
from Russia). In 2012 Gazprom exports are expected to reach $84.5
billion, $61 billion of this to Europe for 150 billion m3.
UES' gas-fired plants burn about 60% of the gas marketed in Russia by
Gazprom, and it is aimed to halve this by 2020. (Also, by 2020, the
Western Siberian gas fields will be so depleted that they supply only a
tenth of current Russian output, compared with nearly three quarters
now.) Also there are major regional grid constraints so that a
significant proportion of the capacity of some plants cannot be used.
Some non-nuclear generators have been privatised, eg OGK-4 (E.ON Russia)
is 76% owned by E.ON, and OGK-5 (Enel Russia) is 56% owned by Enel.
Other OGKs are owned by Inter RAO or Gazprom. Some TGK companies (also
supplying heat) are private, others such as TGK-3 or Mosenergo are owned
by Gazprom.
* In Russia, "energy" mostly implies electricity.
Electricity production was 1071 TWh in 2012, with 178 TWh coming from
nuclear power, 525 TWh from gas, 169 TWh from coal and 167 TWh from
hydro. Net export was 16.4 TWh and final consumption was 742 TWh (after
transmission losses of 107 TWh and own use/energy sector use of 204
TWh). In 2013 nuclear production was 162 TWh (17.5% of total) and in
2014 it rose to a record 180.5 TWh according to Rosenergoatom.
In November 2009, the government's Energy Strategy 2030 was
published, projecting investments for the next two decades. It envisaged
a possible doubling of generation capacity from 225 GWe in 2008 to
355-445 GWe in 2030. A revised scheme in mid 2010 projected 1288 billion
kWh demand in 2020 and 1553 billion kWh in 2030, requiring 78 GWe of
new plant by 2020 and total 178 GWe new build by 2030, including 43.4
GWe nuclear. The scheme envisaged decommissioning 67.7 GWe of capacity
by 2030, including 16.5 GWe of nuclear plant (about 70% of present
capacity). New investment by 2030 of RUR 9800 billion in power plants
and RUR 10,200 billion in transmission would be required. In mid 2010
the projected annual electricity demand growth to 2020 was put at 2.2%.
In mid 2013, UES projected 1.9%pa. Retail electricity prices are
relatively low – for households in 2010, about 9c/kWh compared with EU
median of 18.5 cents.
Rosenergoatom is the sole nuclear utility, following consolidation in
2001. In 2009 nuclear production was 163.3 billion kWh (83.7 TWh from
VVER, 79.6 TWh from RBMK and other). Over 2010-12 it was 170-178 TWh,
but dropped to 162 TWh in 2013. Before this, nuclear electricity output
had risen strongly due simply to better performance of the nuclear
plants, with capacity factors leaping from 56% to 76% 1998-2003 and then
on to 80.2% in 2009. Rosenergoatom aims for 90% capacity factor by
2015. In 2006 Rosatom announced a target of nuclear providing 23% of
electricity by 2020 and 25% by 2030, but 2007 and 2009 plans approved by
the government scaled this back significantly. (see: Extending Nuclear
Capacity below) In mid-2013 UES projected a decrease from 17.2% to 15.9%
for nuclear output by 2020, with a substantial increase in fossil fuel
power.
In July 2012 the Energy Ministry (Minenergo) published draft plans to
commission 83 GWe of new capacity by 2020, including 10 GWe nuclear to
total 30.5 GWe producing 238 TWh/yr. A year later Minenergo reduced the
projection to 28.26 GWe in 2019. Total investment envisaged is RUR 8230
billion, including RUR 4950 billion on upgrading power plants, RUR 3280
billion on new grid capacity and RUR 1320 billion on nuclear. In May
2015 the Ministry of Economic Development announced a “very significant"
delay in commissioning new nuclear power plants due to “a current
energy surplus”. Commissioning of two new Leningrad units and two new
Novovoronezh units was delayed by one year, and construction of Smolensk
II was postponed for six years.
In parallel with this Russia is greatly increasing its hydro-electric
capacity, aiming to increase by 60% to 2020 and double it by 2030.
Hydro OGK is planning to commission 5 GWe by 2011. The 3 GWe
Boguchanskaya plant in Siberia is being developed in collaboration with
Rusal, for aluminium smelting. The aim is to have almost half of
Russia's electricity from nuclear and hydro by 2030.
UES wholesale electricity tariffs were planned to increase from (US$)
1.1 c/kWh in 2001 to 1.9 c/kWh in 2005 and 2.4 c/kWh in 2015. However,
only much smaller increases have so far been approved by the government,
and even these have attracted wide opposition. However, electricity
supplied is now being fully paid for, in contrast to the situation in
the mid 1990s.
In February 2007 RAO UES said that it was aiming to raise up to US$
15 billion by selling shares in as many as 15 power generation
companies, having increased its investment target by 2010 from $79 to
$118 billion. Late in 2006 UES raised $459 million by selling 14.4% of
one of its generators, OGK-5, and since then the UES sell-off continued
with investors committing to continued expansion. In mid-2008 RAO UES
was wound up, having sold off all its assets. Some of these were bought
by EU utilities, for instance Finland's Fortum bought at auction 76.5%
of the small utility TGC-10, which operates in well-developed industrial
regions of the Urals and Western Siberia. From July 2008, 25% of all
Russia's power is sold on the competitive market. The wholesale power
market was to be fully liberalised by 2011.
InterRAO UES was initially a subsidiary of RAO UES, involved with
international trade and investment in electricity, particularly with
Finland, Belarus and Kazakhstan. It acquired some of RAO UES assets when
that company was broken up in 2008 and it now controls about 18 GWe in
Russia and Armenia. It was responsible for finding a foreign investor
and structuring electricity marketing for the proposed Baltic nuclear
power plant. It aims to increase its generation capacity to 30 GWe by
2015. In November 2008 Rosatom's share in InterRAO was increased to
57.28%.
The Federal Grid Company (RAO FGC)
owns Russia's 118,000-km high-voltage transmission grid and plans to
invest €12 billion ($14.5 billion) over 2010-13 to modernize it. It has
signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Siemens to progress this,
using the company's low-loss high-voltage DC transmission technology.
The system operator is the Centralized Dispatching Administration (OAO
SO-CDA).
Present nuclear capacity
Russia's nuclear plants, with 33 operating reactors totalling 24,164 MWe, comprise:
- 4 early VVER-440/230 or similar pressurised water reactors,
- 2 later VVER-440/213 pressurised water reactors,
- 11 current-generation VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors with a full containment structure, mostly V-320 types,
- 13 RBMK light water graphite reactors (LWGR) now unique to Russia. The four oldest of these were commissioned in the 1970s at Kursk and Leningrad and are of some concern to the Western world. A further Kursk unit is under construction.
- 4 small graphite-moderated BWR reactors in eastern Siberia, constructed in the 1970s for cogeneration (EGP-6 models on linked map).
- One BN-600 fast-breeder reactor.
Apart from Bilibino, several reactors supply district heating – a total of over 11 PJ/yr.
Power reactors in operation
| Reactor | Type V=PWR |
MWe net, each |
Commercial operation |
Scheduled close |
| Balakovo 1-2 | V-320 | 988, 1028 | 5/86, 1/88 | 2015, 2017 (being extended) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balakovo 3-4 | V-320 | 988 | 4/89, 12/93 | 2018, 2023 |
| Beloyarsk 3 | BN-600 FBR | 560 | 11/81 | 2025 |
| Bilibino 1-4 | LWGR EGP-6 | 11 | 4/74-1/77 | 2019-21 |
| Kalinin 1-2 | V-338 | 950 | 6/85, 3/87 | 2025, 2016 (being extended) |
| Kalinin 3 | V-320 | 988 | 11/05 | 2034 |
| Kalinin 4 | V-320 | 950 | 9/12 | 2042 |
| Kola 1-2 | V-230 | 432, 411 | 12/73, 2/75 | 2018, 2019 |
| Kola 3-4 | V-213 | 411 | 12/82, 12/84 | 2026, 2039 |
| Kursk 1-2 | RBMK | 1020, 971 | 10/77, 8/79 | 2021, 2024 |
| Kursk 3 | RBMK | 971 | 3/84 | 2013+ |
| Kursk 4 | RBMK | 925 | 2/86 | 2015+ |
| Leningrad 1 | RBMK | 925 | 11/74 | 2018 |
| Leningrad 2 | RBMK | 971 | 2/76 | 2020 |
| Leningrad 3 | RBMK | 971 | 6/80 | 2024 |
| Leningrad 4 | RBMK | 925 | 8/81 | 2025 |
| Novovoronezh 3-4 | V-179 | 385 | 6/72, 3/73 | 2016, 2017 |
| Novovoronezh 5 | V-187 | 950 | 2/81 | 2035 |
| Smolensk 1 | RBMK | 925 | 9/83 | 2023 |
| Smolensk 2 | RBMK | 925 | 7/85 | 2030 |
| Smolensk 3 | RBMK | 925 | 1/90 | 2020 |
| Rostov 1 | V-320 | 990 | 3/01 | 2030 |
| Rostov 2 | V-320 | 990 | 10/10 | 2040 |
| Rostov 3 | V-320 | 1011 | (7/2015) | 2045 |
| Total: 34 | 25,264 MWe | |||
V-320 is the base model of what is
generically VVER-1000; V-230 and V-213 are generically VVER-440; V-179
& V-187 are prototypes. Rostov was formerly sometimes known as
Volgodonsk. A July 2012 Energy Ministry plan shows 22,743 MWe net,
24,242 MWe gross, excluding Kalinin 4.
Life extension, uprates and completing construction
Most reactors are being licensed for life extension:
Generally, Russian reactors were originally licensed for 30 years from
first power. Late in 2000, plans were announced for lifetime extensions
of twelve first-generation reactors totalling 5.7 GWe, and the extension
period envisaged is now 15 to 25 years, necessitating major investment
in refurbishing them. Generally the VVER-440 and most RBMK units will
get 15-year life extensions and the VVER-1000 units 25 years. (Kola 1
& 2 VVER-440 and the Kursk and Leningrad RBMK units are all models
which the EU has paid to shut down early in countries outside Russia.)
* Leningrad 1&2, Kursk 1&2, Kola 1&2, Bilibino 1-4, Novovoronezh 3&4.
To the end of 2011, 15-year extensions had been achieved for 17 units
totalling 9.8 GWe: Beloyarsk 3, Novovoronezh 3-5, Kursk 1-2, Kola-1-4,
and Leningrad-1-4, as well as Bilibino 1-4. In 2006 Rosatom said it was
considering lifetime extensions and uprating of all its eleven operating
RBMK reactors. Following significant design modifications made after
the Chernobyl accident, as well as extensive refurbishment including
replacement of fuel channels, a 45-year lifetime is seen as realistic
for most of the 1000 MWe units. In 2011 they provided 47.5% of Russia's
nuclear-generated electricity.
For older RBMK units, service lifetime performance recovery (LPR)
operations involve correcting deformation of the graphite stack. The
procedure will give each of these older reactors at least three years
extra operation, and may then be repeated. Leningrad 1 was the first
reactor to undergo this over 2012-13.
Most reactors are being uprated. The July 2012
Energy Ministry draft plan envisaged increasing the power of VVER-440
units to 107%, that of RBMKs to 105% and VVER-1000 units to 104-110%
(revised to 107-110% in 2013).
During 2010-11 the uprating program was completed for all VVER units
except Novovoronezh 5 (see below): 4% for VVER-1000, 5% for VVER-440
(but 7% for Kola 4). The cost of this was put at US$ 200 per kilowatt,
compared with $2400/kW for construction of Rostov 2. Kalinin units 1-3
are quoted at 1075 MWe gross after uprate, and unit 4 started pilot
commercial operation at 104% of rated power in February 2015.
Rosenergoatom has been investigating further uprates of VVER-1000
units to 107-110% of original capacity, using Balakovo 4 as a pilot
plant to 2014. The cost of further uprates beyond 104% is expected to be
up to $570/kW, depending on what needs to be replaced – the turbine
generators being the main items. It seems that for the V-320 units,
pilot commercial operation at 104% power will be carried out over three
fuel campaigns, with the reactor and other system parameters being
monitored and relevant data collected. After this period, a cumulative
104% power operation report will be produced for each plant.
Rostechnadzor will then assess safety and possibly licence commercial
operation at the higher power level.
The R&D Institute of Power Engineering was preparing plans for 5%
uprating of the later Leningrad, Kursk and Smolensk RBMK units. For
Leningrad 2-4, fuel enriched to average 3% instead of 2.4% would allow a
5% increase in power, and Rostechnadzor authorized trials in unit 2 of
the new fuel. Following this it was to consider authorizing a 5% uprate
for long-term operation. However, Rosenergoatom in May 2012 flagged
problems with ageing of the graphite moderator, most acute at Leningrad
1, questioned proceeding with uprates of older units, and said it would
consider de-rating individual units where problems such as pressure tube
distortion were apparent due to graphite swelling. Leningrad 1 would be
de-rated to 80% to prolong its operating life, and work to restore its
graphite stack and extend its service life will be completed late in
2013. Similar work would then be done on all first-generation RBMKs,
since these are so important economically to Rosenergoatom. However,
future RBMK operation might possibly be at reduced capacity of 80%
across all units. The successful repair of Leningrad 1 removed the
pressure for accelerated replacement of old RBMK units.
Individual operating power plants
Balakovo: In December 2009 Rostechnadzor approved a
4% increase in power from Balakovo 2 and it was to undergo a major
overhaul after 2012. Balakovo 1 has been upgraded at a cost of RUR 9.8
billion to achieve life extension. All Balakovo V-320 units are uprated
to 104%, but as of mid-2012, units 1, 3&4 were in trial operation
and not yet licensed at this level, and upgrading will continue to
2018. Atomenergoproekt documentation for a life extension of unit 1 is
expected at the end of 2014, and Rosatom has agreed in principle to do
the same for the other three units.
Beloyarsk: Beloyarsk 3 BN-600 fast neutron reactor
has been upgraded for 15-year life extension, to 2025. Its licence was
renewed to 2020. It achieved 30 years of operation to late 2011,
producing 114 billion kWh with capacity factor of 76%. Due to
progressive modification, its fuel burn up has increased from 7% (design
value) to 11.4%. It provides heat for Zarechny town as well.
Bilibino: Units 1-4 have been given 15-year licence extensions, but will be shut down by 2021.
Kalinin: Unit 1 was undergoing major overhaul in
2012 for licence extension and power uprate, and Kalinin 2 was to
follow. Kalinin 2&3 have been approved for a 4% increase in power
and are operating at this level on pilot commercial basis since 2012.
Kalinin 1 was undergoing tests at 104% in 2013 and in mid-2014 it was
granted a ten-year life extension, to mid-2025.
Kalinin 4 is a V-320 unit built by Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergopoekt.
Rostechnadzor approved an operating licence in October 2011, it started
up in November, was grid-connected in December and attained full
commercial operation in September 2012. It uses major components
originally supplied for Belene in Bulgaria. Final cost was RUR 7 billion
($220 million) under budget – about 10%. Silmash (Power Machines) is
upgrading the turbine generator of units 3 & 4 to increase their
gross power to 1100 MWe in 2016.
Kola: Safety analyses for Kola 3&4, which are
later-model VVER-440 reactors, have allowed for at least 15-year life
extension from 2011 and 2014 respectively, and significant upratings,
despite low power demand in the Murmansk region and Karelia which means
they are not fully utilised. In 2010, intended life extension was
announced for Kola 3 (15 years). Kola 4 has been uprated to 107% using
improved fuel assemblies on a six-year cycle and run on pilot basis but
is not yet fully licensed at this level. In October 2014 Rostechnadzor
granted a 25-year licence extension for unit 4, taking it to 2039 – 55
years.
In November 2013 the Regional Energy Planning Scheme suggested units
1&2 might continue to operate until two new VVER-TOI units are
commissioned, likely to be 2025 and 2030 respectively. In mid-2014
Rosenergoatom suggested that Kola 1&2 might have a second life
extension, taking them to 60 years operation (2033, 2034). A decision is
due early in 2015. Major works were undertaken on the two units over
1991 to 2005, costing $718 million, $96 million of this from
international sources including neighbouring countries, and it is
claimed that further work could bring them to contemporary standards.
Kursk: In 2010 Kursk 1 licence was extended for 10
years to 2016. A major contract for upgrading unit 4 followed that for
Leningrad 4, and Kursk 2 & 3 would follow. Having had a licence
extension to 2016, Kursk 1 was the first RBMK unit to be licensed for
pilot operation with 5% uprate (apparently to 1020 MWe net) but units 2
& 4 were also operating at this level late in 2011. In February 2012
Rosatom said it would invest a further RUR 30 billion ($1.1 billion) in
upgrading Kursk 2-4 and extending their operating lives – RUR 5.0, 11.9
& 13.7 billion respectively. On units 1&2 work on the graphite
moderator was envisaged to avoid the deformation experienced in
Leningrad 1, and in 2014 this was undertaken for unit 2, but following
inspection further work was postponed for unit 1. Unit 2 was returned to
service in February 2014 after its ‘lifetime performance restoration
program’ based on such work at unit 1.
Leningrad: In 2010, intended life extension was
announced for Leningrad 4 (15 years), and it has undergone an RUR 17
billion refurbishment over 2008-11, including replacement of generator
stator. The upgrading investment in all four Leningrad I units totalled
RUR 48 billion ($1.6 billion) to early 2012. Leningrad unit 1 was shut
down in May 2012 due to deformation of the graphite moderator, and after
a RUR 5 billion ($146 million) restoration of the graphite stack as the
pioneer lifetime performance recovery (LPR) procedure it was restarted
in November 2013. The same work is being undertaken on unit 2 in 2014,
and second stage LPR work on unit 1 is planned for 2015.
For Leningrad 2-4, fuel enriched to average 3% instead of 2.4% would
allow a 5% increase in power – some 46 MWe each. Rostechnadzor
authorized trials in unit 2 of the new fuel, and following this it was
to consider authorizing a 5% uprate for long-term operation. This now
seems in doubt. However, 15-year life extension of all four units is
planned, with necessary upgrading.
Novovoronezh: Units 3&4 gained 15-year licence
extensions. A plan for refurbishment, upgrade and life extension of
Novovoronezh 5 was announced in mid-2009, this being the first
second-generation VVER-1000 project. The initial estimate was RUR 1.66
billion ($52 million) but this eventually became RUR 14 billion ($450
million). The 12 months work from September 2010 included total
replacement of the reactor control system and 80% of electrical
equipment, and fitting upgraded safety systems, in particular, those of
emergency core cooling and feedwater, and emergency power supply. Its
operating life is extended to 2035.
Smolensk: Early in 2012 Rosatom announced a RUR 45
billion ($1.5 billion) program to upgrade and extend the operating life
of Smolensk 1-3 RBMK units. At the same time, construction of Smolensk
II would get underway, with the first VVER unit to come on line by 2024.
In 2012 Smolensk 1 was licensed to December 2022, a ten-year extension
after refurbishment. Upgrading unit 2 was undertaken from 2013, to come
back on line in 2015, and included replacement of fuel channels and
upgrading the reactor control and protection system and radiation
monitoring system, as well as reinforcing the building structure. In
April 2015, an application was made for a 15-year licence extension.
Unit 3 upgrade will follow, though it is already operating above 1000
MWe gross.
Rostov: Rostov 1 has been approved for a 4% increase
in power and is operating at this level on pilot commercial basis. In
September 2009 Rostechnadzor approved an operating licence for Rostov 2;
it started up in January 2010, was grid connected in March, and
apparently entered full commercial operation in October 2010. It was
approved for 104% in October 2012. For Rostov 3&4, which are
effectively new V-320 plants, construction resumed in 2009. See also
following section.
Reactors under construction
The Beloyarsk 4 BN-800 fast neutron reactor in Zarechny municipality of Sverdlovsk Region. This was delayed by lack of funds following construction start in 2006 and after first criticality in June 2014 is now expected on line in 2015. Commercial operation is possible in 2015, though it is essentially a demonstration unit for fuel and design features for the BN-1200. (See also Transition to Fast Reactors subsection below.)From mid-2008 there are four standard third-generation VVER reactors being built: at Leningrad (two units to commence stage 2) and Novovoronezh (similarly) to be commissioned 2012-14. This leads to a program of starting to build at least 2000 MWe per year in Russia from 2009 (apart from export plants). See following section.
There has been considerable uncertainty about completing Kursk 5 – an upgraded RBMK design which is more than 70% built. Rosatom was keen to see it completed and in January 2007 the Duma's energy committee recommended that the government fund its completion by 2010*. However, funds were not forthcoming and the economic case for completion was doubtful, so in February 2012 Rosatom confirmed that the project was terminated. Instead, major announcements were made regarding Kursk II, a modern VVER plant to be built from 2015 to ensure that Kursk remains “the key electricity generation facility in the Central Black-Soil (Chernozemye) Region of Russia” – Kursk provided half the power there in 2011.
* In March 2007 the Industry Ministry recommended
to the government that work proceed and Rosenergoatom then applied for
RUR 27 billion (US$ 1 billion) from the ministry's 2008-10 federal
budget to complete it. This did not materialise, so other funds were
sought, and discussions with Sberbank and industrial electricity
consumers such as steel producers continued into 2009. All other RBMK
reactors – long condemned by the EU – are due to close by 2024, which
would leave it technologically isolated. Despite positive statements as
recently as September 2009, according to Rosatom early in 2010 it
required RUR 45 billion and 3.5 years to finish and connect (RUR 27
billion for the plant itself), compared with around RUR 60 billion for
building the same capacity from scratch in the new projects under way.
Rosatom said that this meant "there is no sense in completing the
reactor construction". (Accordingly it was then removed from WNA's
"under construction" list.)
After the Fukushima accident, checks were made on Russian nuclear
plants. Following these, in mid June 2011 Rosenergoatom announced a RUR
15 billion ($530 million) safety upgrade program for additional power
and water supply back-up. Rosenergoatom spent RUR 2.6 billion on 66
mobile diesel generator sets, 35 mobile pumping units and 80 other
pumps.Retiring old units
The July 2012 Energy Ministry draft plan envisages decommissioning nine units by 2020 – four VVERs (probably Kola 1&2, Novovoronezh 3&4), two RBMKs (probably Leningrad 1 and Kursk 1) and three of the small Bilibino EGPs, total 3750 MWe gross, 3521 MWe net. The last Bilibino unit will close by 2021.Building new nuclear capacity
Rosatom's initial proposal for a rapid expansion of nuclear capacity
was based on the cost effectiveness of completing the 9 GWe of then
partially built plant. To get the funds, Minatom offered Gazprom the
opportunity to invest in some of the partly completed nuclear plants.
The argument was that the US$ 7.3 billion required for the whole 10 GWe
(including the just-completed Rostov 1) would be quickly recouped from
gas exports if the new nuclear plant reduced the need to burn that gas
domestically.
In September 2006 Rosatom announced a target of nuclear providing 23%
of electricity by 2020, thus commissioning two 1200 MWe plants per year
from 2011 to 2014 and then three per year until 2020 – some 31 GWe and
giving some 44 GWe of nuclear capacity then. By July 2012 this had been
scaled back to give 30.5 GWe nuclear in 2020.
In October 2006 Russia formally adopted a US$ 55 billion nuclear
energy development program, with $26 billion of this to 2015 coming from
the federal budget. The balance would be from industry (Rosatom) funds,
and no private investment was involved. The Minister of Finance
strongly supported the program to increase nuclear share from 15.6% to
18.6% of total, hence improving energy security as well as promoting
exports of nuclear power technology. After 2015 all funding would be
from Rosatom revenues.
In September 2007 the first version of the following scheme was
released, but noting that from 2012 to 2020 only two 1200 MWe units per
year were within the "financial capacity of the federal task program".
Accordingly, the third units for 2015 and 2016 were designated
"proposed". In the February 2008 update of this (below), one 1200 MWe
Tversk unit was brought forward to 2015 scheduled start-up, so was
designated "planned":
In February 2008, under the broader Master Plan for Electric Energy
Facilities to 2020, the earlier federal target plan (FTP) to 2020 was
endorsed with little change except than an extra five VVER-1200 units
were added as "maximum scenario" or "extra" in the last few years to
2020. As well as the 4800 MWe capacity then under construction, a
further 12,000 MWe was planned for completion mostly by 2016, and then a
lot more by 2020. Several new sites were involved. Also the new 300 MWe
units were listed as being VBER-300 PWR types.
More significantly, the Ministry of Industry and Energy (MIE) and
Rosatom were charged with promptly developing an action plan to attract
investment into power generation. It is envisaged that by 2020 much
generation would be privatized and competitive, while the state would
control natural monopoly functions such as the grid.
From January 2009 the FTP was supplemented by Rosatom's long-term
activity program. This included Kursk 5 and the Baltic plant in
Kaliningrad, both subject to private finance. However, capacity targets
and expenditure were much as above. By 2030 nuclear share of electricity
was expected to grow to 25%, from 16% then.
However, by April 2009 reduced electricity demand expectations caused
the whole construction program outlined above to be scaled back, and
some projects put on hold. Ten units were deferred pending "economic
upturn and electricity demand growth", expected in about two years. See
Table below, where three units were moved from planned to proposed
accordingly. From mid 2009, half the capital for new nuclear plants
would come from Rosatom budget and half from the state.
In July 2009 a revised federal target program (FTP) for 2010-2015 and
until 2020 was approved and signed by the President. This put Kursk II
1-2 and Smolensk II 1-2 into the picture for completion by 2020, ahead
of many other units, and they have been shown thus in the Table below.
The first unit of the Baltic plant was to be complete in 2016.
In July 2012 the Energy Ministry published draft plans to commission
only 10 GWe nuclear to 2020 – basically what was currently under
construction including Kalinin 4, to give total 30.5 GWe producing 238
TWh/yr by then.
In November 2013 the Regional Energy Planning Scheme included
construction at new sites in Tatarstan, Seversk and Kostroma (each
2x1200 MWe VVER), and Chelyabinsk, South Urals (2 x BN-1200) by 2030.
In February 2010 the government announced that Rosenergoatom’s
investment program for 2010 amounted to RUR 163.3 billion, of which RUR
53 billion would come from the federal budget. Of the total, RUR 101.7
billion is for nuclear plant construction, almost half of this from
Rosenergoatom funds. It includes the reactors listed below as under
construction, as well as Leningrad II-2 and the Baltic plant. In March
Rosatom said that it now intended to commission three new reactors per
year from 2016.
In March 2011 the State Duma’s energy committee recommended
construction of Kursk II with standard VVER-TOI reactors and updating
FTP plans to have Units 1 and 2 put on line in 2020 and 2023. Rosatom
was told to start engineering surveys for Kursk II in 2011. It has said
that unit 1 must be in service by the time the first RBMK unit of phase I
is closed, to ensure adequate supply to Moscow.
The FTP program is based on VVER technology at least to about 2030.
But it highlights the goal of moving to fast neutron reactors and closed
fuel cycle, for which Rosatom proposed two options, outlined below in
the Transition to Fast Reactors
section. In stage 1 of the second option, which was adopted, a 100 MWe
lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactor is to be built, and in stage 2 over
2015-2020 a pilot demonstration 300 MWe lead-cooled BREST reactor and a
multi-purpose fast neutron research reactor (MBIR) are to be built. In
addition it is planned to build and commission a commercial complex to
fabricate dense fuel, to complete construction of a pilot demonstration
pyrochemical complex to fabricate BN fuel, and to test closed fuel cycle
technologies. Fusion studies are included and the total R&D budget
is RUR 55.7 billion, mostly from the federal budget. The FTP
implementation is intended to result in a 70% growth in exports of high
technology equipment, works and services rendered by the Russian nuclear
industry by 2020. In 2012 the head of Rosatom said that the FTP was
being accelerated to bring forward development and have a full range of
fast reactor technologies with associated fuel cycles operating by 2020.
Rosatom's R&D budget would be almost doubled by then to achieve
this.
In 2009 Siemens announced that it would withdraw from Areva and forge
a link with Rosatom. A memorandum of understanding then confirmed the
intent to set up a joint venture with Rosatom as majority shareholder,
developing Russian VVER designs, building new nuclear power plants, and
upgrading existing nuclear plants. This was hailed by Mr Putin as a
long-term strategic partnership. However, finalising the agreement was
delayed pending Siemens disengaging from Areva, and in September 2011
Siemens announced that it would not proceed. In any case most of Siemens
intellectual property remained with Areva, so it would have had little
to contribute to Rosatom/ Atomenergoprom.
In October 2014 Rosatom resolved in principle to develop small and
medium power reactors, though initially they are not expected to compare
economically with larger units. In May 2014 Rosenergoatom was
completing comparative assessment of VVER-600 and VBER-600 designs. The
chosen design is likely to be built at Kola initially.
See also subsections: Transition to Fast Reactors, and Fast Reactors, in the Reactor Technology section below
The latest Federal Target Program (FTP) envisages a 25-30% nuclear
share in electricity supply by 2030, 45-50% in 2050 and 70-80% by end of
century.
Major Power Reactors under Construction, Planned and officially Proposed
| Plant | Reactor Type | MWe gross (net expected) | Status, start construction | Start or commercial op'n |
| Beloyarsk 4 | BN-800 FBR | 864 (789) | Const | Started up June 2014 |
| Rostov 4 | VVER-1000/V-320 | 1100 (1011) | Const 1983, first new concrete 6/10 | 6/2017 |
| Floating NPP 1 for Pevek | KLT-40S | 35x2 (32x2) | Const 5/09 | 2017-2018 |
| Novovoronezh II-1 | VVER-1200/V-392M | 1200 (1114) | Const 6/08 | start up now 2016 |
| Leningrad II-1 | VVER-1200/V-491 | 1170 (1085) | Const 10/08 | 2017 |
| Novovoronezh II-2 | VVER-1200/V-392M | 1200 (1114) | Const 7/09 | 2019 |
| Leningrad II-2 | VVER-1200/V-491 | 1170 (1085) | Const 4/10 | 2019 |
| Baltic 1 (Kaliningrad) | VVER-1200/V-491 | 1194 (1109) | Const 4/12, suspended 6/13 | ?? |
| Subtotal of 9 under construction |
7968 MWe gross, 7371 net*
|
|||
| * IAEA PRIS August 2014 | ||||
| Dimitrovgrad | SVBR-100 | 100 | Planned, 2015 | 2017 |
| Seversk | BREST-300 | 300 | Planned, 2016 | 2020 |
| Nizhny Novgorod 1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2014 | 2019 |
| Nizhny Novgorod 2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2015 | 2021 |
| Leningrad II-3 | VVER 1200/V-491 | 1170 | Planned, 2015 | 2021 |
| Leningrad II-4 | VVER 1200/V-491 | 1170 | Planned, 2016 | 2022 |
| Kursk II-1 | VVER-TOI | 1300 | Planned, 2015 | 12/2020 |
| Kursk II-2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2016 | 12/2021 |
| Kursk II-3 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | 2026 |
| Kursk II-4 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | 2029 |
| Kola II-1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2015 | by 2025 |
| Kola II-2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Smolensk II-1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2022 | 2027 |
| Smolensk II-2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned, 2024 | 2029 |
| Smolensk II-3 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | 2026 |
| Smolensk II-4 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | 2028 |
| Tatar 1 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Planned? | by 2030 |
| Tatar 2 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Planned? | by 2030 |
| Seversk 1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Seversk 2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Tsentral/Kostroma 1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Tsentral/Kostroma 2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Beloyarsk 5 | BN-1200 | 1220 | Planned, 2020 | by 2025 |
| South Urals 1 | BN-1200 | 1220 | Planned | by 2030 |
| South Urals 2 | BN-1200 | 1220 | Planned | by 2030 |
| Bashkirsk 1 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | |
| Bashkirsk 2 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Planned | |
| FNPP (for Sakha?) | KLT-40S | 40x2 | Planned | 2020 |
| Primorsk 1 | VK-300 or VBER-300 | 300 | Planned | 2019 |
| Primorsk 2 | VK-300 or VBER-300 | 300 | Planned | 2020 |
| Baltic 2 (Kaliningrad) | VVER 1200/V-491 | 1194 | Suspended | |
| subtotal of 31 planned | 33,264 gross | |||
| Note that the 3rd and 4th units of some of the above new plants (eg Novovoronezh, Smolensk) may be built ahead of others listed above. | ||||
| dates very tentative: | ||||
| South Urals 3 | BN-1200 | 1220 | Proposed | 2030 |
| Zheleznogorsk MCC | VBER-300 | 300 | Proposed | 2020? |
| Zheleznogorsk MCC | VBER-300 | 300 | Proposed | 2020? |
| Novovoronezh II-3 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Novovoronezh II-4 | VVER 1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Tver 1 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Tver 2 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Tver 3 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Tver 4 | VVER-1200 | 1200 | Proposed | ? |
| Nizhny Novgorod 3 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Proposed | ? |
| Nizhny Novgorod 4 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Proposed | ? |
| Tsentral 3 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Proposed | ? |
| Tsentral 4 | VVER-TOI | 1255 | Proposed | ? |
| Beloyarsk 6 | BN-1200/1600 | 1220/1600 | Proposed (approved) | ? |
| Balakova 5&6 | VVER-1000 | 1000x2 | Formerly proposed RUSAL | ? |
| Sakha | ABV-6 | 18x2 | Proposed | ? |
| Subtotal of 18 units 'proposed' | 16,000 approx | |||
VVER-1200 is the reactor portion of the AES-2006
nuclear power plant, or for planned units beyond Leningrad II it may be
VVER-TOI plant with VVER 1200/ V510 reactor. Rostov was also known as
Volgodonsk, and construction of units 3&4 actually began in 1983 but
was suspended indefinitely with relatively little work done. South
Urals was to be BN-800, and now likely BN-1200.
Seversk is near Tomsk, Tver is near Kalinin,
Nizhegorod is a new site near Nizhniy Novgorod, 400 km east of Moscow,
and Tsentral (central) is at Buisk in Kostrama region. South Ural is at
Ozersk, Chelyabinsk region, 140 km west of Chelyabinsk in Sverdlovsk
region. Tatarskaya is in Kamskiye Polyany in Nizhnekamsk Region.
Primorsk is in the far east, as is Vilyuchinsk in the Kamchatka region,
and Pevek in the Chukotka Autonomous Region near Bilibino, which it will
replace. Floating nuclear power or cogeneration plants are planned for
Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka and Pevek, Chukotka. Tver and Tsentral are
considered alternatives in the short term.
Rostov 3&4 (formerly Volgodonsk)
The environmental statement and construction application were
approved by Rostechnadzor in May 2009, the construction licence was
granted to Energoatom in June, and construction resumed about September
(it had started in 1983). First new concrete for unit 4 was in June
2010. The plant is 13.5 km from the city on the banks of Volgodonsk
Tsimlyansk reservoir. Rosatom brought forward the completion dates of
the two units after deciding that they would have V-320 type of VVER
with improved steam generators and capacity of 1100 MWe. This is
expected to save some RUR 10 billion relative to the AES-2006 technology
as it continues the construction done over 1983-86. OMZ's Izhorskiye
Zavody facility at Izhora is providing the pressure vessel for unit 3.
Nizhniy Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (now NIAEP-ASE) is principal
contractor for units 3&4, expected to cost 130 billion (US$ 4.1
billion) according to Rosenergoatom in August 2012. Steam generators for
unit 4 will be from AEM-Tekhnologi at the Atommash plant, those for
unit 3 from ZiO-Podolsk. Ukraine's Turboatom is to provide the low-speed
turbine generators for both units. Grid connection of unit 2 was in
March 2010 and full commercial operation was in October. Unit 3 started
up and was grid-connected in December 2014. Full commercial operation is
expected in Q3 2015.
Novovoronezh II
The principal contractor for Phase II is JSC AtomEnergoProekt
(Moscow), with work starting in 2007 and some involvement of NIAEP-ASE.
This is the lead plant for deploying the V-392M version of the AES-2006
units. First concrete was poured for unit 1 of this (unit 6 at the site)
in June 2008 and it is expected to be commissioned in 2015, with unit 2
following a year later, at a total cost of US$ 5 billion for 2136 MWe
net (1068 MWe net each). The reactor pressure vessel is due to be
completed by OMZ Izhora in August 2010. The reactor pressure vessels are
from OMZ Izhora and the advanced steam generators from ZiO-Podolsk,
with 60-year life expectancy. Rostechnadzor licensed construction of
unit 2 in October 2008 and construction started in July 2009.
Atomenergoproekt told its contractors in December 2014 to accelerate
work, but in May 2015 a delay of one year in commissioning both units
was announced, due to low power demand. The plant is on one of the main
hubs of the Russian grid.
Leningrad II
A general contract for Leningrad phase II AES-2006 plant was signed
with St Petersburg AtomEnergoProekt (SPb AEP, merged with VNIPIET to
become Atomproekt) in August 2007 and Rostechnadzor granted site
licences in September 2007 for two units. A specific engineering,
procurement and construction contract for the first two V-491 units was
signed in Marchand Rostechnadzor issued a construction licence in June
2008. First concrete was poured on schedule for unit 1 in October 2008
and it was due to be commissioned in October 2013. However, a section of
outer containment collapsed in 2011 and set back the schedule, as did
subsequent manpower shortage, so that commissioning was then expected in
2016, following start-up at the end of 2015. Rostechnadzor granted a
construction licence for the second reactor in July 2009, and first
concrete was poured in April 2010. Commercial operation was due in 2018
but in May 2015 a delay of one year in commissioning both units was
announced, due to low power demand. Each reactor will also provide 1.05
TJ/hr (9.17 PJ/yr) of district heating. Gross power is 1170 MWe each,
net expected 1085 MWe. They are designed to replace the oldest two
Leningrad units.
The 2008 construction contract was for US$ 5.8 billion ($2480/kW)
possibly including some infrastructure. Total project cost was estimated
at $6.6 billion. It was reported in September 2011 that Titan-2, a
major subcontractor, took over from SPb AEP as principal construction
contractor, then in February 2012 that Spetsstroy of Russia (Federal
Agency for Special Construction) would do so. In December 2013
Roesenergoatom transferred the project from Spetsstroy to
Atomenergoproekt Moscow as principal contractor, while SPb
AEP/VNIPIET/Atomproekt remained architect general. NIAEP-ASE also bid
for the general contract in October 2013. Rosatom had said in February
2012 that it did not believe that SPb AEP should perform the full range
of design, construction and equipment supply roles.
A design contract for the next two units (3 & 4) was signed with
SPb AEP in September 2008, and public consultation on these was held in
Sosnovy Bor in mid 2009. An environmental review by Rostechnadzor was
announced for them in January 2010 and site development licences were
granted in June, then renewed in April 2013. Rosenergoatom signed a
contract with VNIPIET at the end of December 2013 to develop project
documentation. It expected construction licences in 2014 and
construction start in 2015.
Beloyarsk 4
See following section on Transition to Fast Reactors.
Start-up was in June 2014, grid connection is due in October 2014, with
commercial operation in 2015. Unit 5 as a BN-1200 plant was included in
the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013.
Nizhny Novgorod
The plant in Navashino District near Monakovo is eventually to
comprise four AES-1200 units of 1150 MWe net and costing RUR 269 billion
(US$ 9.4 billion), the first planned to come on line by 2019 to address
a regional energy deficit. In February 2008 Rosatom appointed
Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN-AEP or NIAEP) as the principal
designer of the plant. Rostechnadzor issued a positive site review for
units 1 & 2 early in 2010 and a site licence with prescription for
site monitoring in January 2011. Rosatom's proposal to proceed with
construction of two units was approved in November 2011. Site works
started in 2012 and formal construction starts are expected in 2014 and
2015, with commissioning in 2019 and 2021. This will be the first
VVER-TOI plant with rated capacity of 1300 MWe per unit. Preliminary
costing is RUR 240 billion (7.38 billion).
Tatar
A 4000 MWe nuclear plant was under construction and due on line from
1992, but construction ceased in 1990. Then a 2-unit VVER-1200 plant was
included in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013. Both
units are expected on line by 2030 in Kamskiye Polyany in Nizhnekamsk
Region of Tatarstan.
Tsentral/Kostroma
The 2340 MWe Tsentral (Central) nuclear power plant is to be 5-10 km
northwest of Buisk Town in the Kostroma region, on the Kostroma River.
It was another of those deferred but following Rosatom's October 2008
decision to proceed, it appeared that construction might start in 2013
with the first unit completed in 2018. Then a 2-unit VVER-1200 plant was
included in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013, with
both units to be on line by 2030. Moscow Atomenergoproekt is the
architect-engineer. Rostechnadzor has approved the site and a
development licence was expected by mid 2010, then a construction
licence in 2012. The cost of the project and infrastructure is expected
to be RUR 130 billion ($ 5 billion).
South Urals
The plant near Ozersk in Chelyabinsk region has been twice deferred,
and was then reported by local government to have three BN-1200 fast
reactor units planned, instead of four VVER-1200. Then a 2-unit BN-1200
plant was included in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November
2013, for completion by 2030. There is only enough cooling water (70
GL/yr) for two of them, and the third will depend on completion of the
Suriyamskoye Reservoir.
Kola II
In January 2012 Rosenergoatom said that the replacement Kola II
plant, about 10 km south of the present plant and on the shores of Lake
Imandra, would be brought forward and built with two VVER-TOI units to
come on line in 2020. Then a 2-unit VVER-1200 plant was included in the
Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013. But in September 2014
Rosenergoatom was considering medium-sized units, either VVER-600 or
VBER-600 for Kola.
Kursk II
In October 2011 Rosatom said that the first unit of Kursk II should
be on line by the time Kursk 1 closes, then envisaged in 2016. In March
2011, the State Duma’s Energy Committee recommended that the government
update the general scheme of deployment of electricity generators, to
have Units 1 and 2 of Kursk II being commissioned in 2020 and 2023 as
the lead project with VVER TOI types. The cost envisaged is RUR 440
billion ($15 billion). Kursk I-5 capacity had been planned in the
federal target program and its abandonment leaves a likely base-load
shortfall for UES in central Russia.
Rosatom was told to start engineering surveys for Kursk II in 2011,
and set up a task force of representatives from the nuclear industry and
Kursk Region government to produce project documentation on
construction of Kursk II. Up to 2000 construction workers were expected
on site by the end of 2014, housed in Kurchatov. Site work commenced at
the end of 2013, environmental assessment is under way, a site licence
is expected, and construction start is planned for 2015, with 48 months
construction time anticipated. Project expenditure in 2014 is expected
to be RUR 3.5 billion. The timing for commissioning is now December 2020
and December 2021. A four-unit plant was included in the Regional
Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013, units 3&4 to be on line by
2030. In June 2012 Rosatom appointed Moscow AEP as designer, though a
later report had Nizhny-Novgorod AEP (NIAEP) as architect general and
principal contractor.
Smolensk II
Atomenergoproekt Moscow is architect engineer for VVER-TOI units to
replace old RBMK capacity at Smolensk. Roesnergoatom’s investment
concept was approved in 2011. Site surveys were undertaken from June
2013, and three potential sites were short-listed: near former villages
Pyatidvorka (Roslavl District, 6 km from Smolensk I), Kholmets (Roslavl
District) and Podmostki (Pochinki District). Then a four-unit VVER plant
was included in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November 2013,
with two units on line by 2025 and two by 2030. Engineering surveys were
completed in November 2014 and site works were due to start at
Pyatidvorka in 2015, followed by construction in 2017. This was then
deferred to 2022, with the first unit expected on line in 2027.
Seversk
The first 1200 MWe unit of the Seversk AES-2006 plant 32 km northwest
of Tomsk was due to start up in 2015 with the second in 2017, but has
been postponed, and a decision on construction schedule was still
unresolved in 2012, in the light of electricity demand. Certainly its
priority is downgraded in 2013. Rosatom was ready to start construction
in 2013, but awaited ministerial direction. Then a two-unit VVER-1200
plant was included in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme in November
2013, both units to be on line by 2030. The plant will also supply 7.5
PJ/yr of district heating.
Atomenrgopoekt Moscow is to build the plant at estimated cost of RUR
134 billion (US$ 4.4 billion). Rostechnadzor granted a site development
licence in November 2009 and a further site licence in 2011. Site work
has commenced. In 2010 Seversk was put on the updated general scheme of
deployment of energy facilities, with the first reactor commissioning
before 2020 and the second one in 2020-2025. Seversk is the site of a
major enrichment plant and former weapons facilities. A design contract
for the low-speed turbine generators has been signed between Moscow AEP
which is responsible for design and engineering, and Alstom
Atomenergomash. This will be the first Russian plant using the low-speed
turbines.
Baltic
Separately from the February 2008 plan, Rosatom energy-trading
subsidiary InterRAO UES proposed a Baltic or Baltiyskaya AES-2006
nuclear plant in Kaliningrad on the Baltic coast to generate electricity
for export, and with up to 49% European equity. Private or foreign
equity would be an innovation for Russia. The plant was designed to
comprise two 1200 MWe VVER units, V-491 model, sited at Neman, on the
Lithuanian border and costing some RUR 194 billion (in 2009 value, EUR
4.6 billion, $6.8 billion), for 2300 MWe net. Project approval was
confirmed by government decree in September 2009, following initial
approval in mid-2008 as an amendment to the federal target program (FTP)
of 2007. The mid-2011 business plan estimated the likely capital cost
to be EUR 6.63 to 8.15 billion.
WorleyParsons was appointed technical consultant for the project.
Rosenergoatom set up a subsidiary: JSC Baltic NPP to build and
commission the plant. St Petersburg Atomenergoproekt - VNIPIET (now
merged as Atomproekt) is the architect engineer, Nizhniy Novgorod AEP
(NIAEP) is construction manager, with Atomstroyexport (ASE).
TitanStroyMontazh is engineering subcontractor. Originally AEM
Petrozavodskmash was to produce the pressure vessel for unit 1 but this
was assigned to AEM-Tekhnologii at the Atommash plant. OMZ's Ishorskiye
Zavody will produce the pressure vessel for unit 2 and the pressurisers
for both units. Alstom-Atomenergomash will supply the Arabelle low-speed
turbine generators for both units – the plant will be the JV's first
customer, and the Baltic plant would be the first Russian plant to use
major foreign components. (LMZ high-speed turbine generators had
initially been approved.)
Site work began in February 2010. Expenditure to January 2012 was RUR
7.25 billion ($241 million), and that in 2012 was expected to be RUR 7
billion. Rostechnadzor issued a construction licence for unit 1 in
November 2011 and first concrete was poured on (revised) schedule in
April 2012, with the base completed in December 2012. Unit 1 was planned
to come on line in October 2016, after 55 months construction,
supplying Rosenergoatom. Commercial operation was due in 2017. Second
unit construction was planned over 2013-18, with 48 months to first
power and full operation in April 2018. NIAEP-ASE suspended construction
in June 2013 (see below), pending a full review of the project intended
to be by mid-2014, though some work on the containment was ongoing in
following months. Rosenergoatom said that in October 2013 it had spent
RUR 50-60 billion ($1.2 to 1.6 billion) on the project.
InterRAO UES was responsible for soliciting investment (by about
2014, well after construction start) and also for electricity sales. The
Baltic plant directly competes with the plan for a new unit at
Visaginas near Ignalina in Lithuania and with plans for new nuclear
plants in Belarus and Poland. Rosenergoatom said that the plant is
deliberately placed "essentially within the EU" and is designed to be
integrated with the EU grid. Most of the power (87% in the mid 2011
business plan) would be exported to Germany, Poland and Baltic states.
Transmission to northern Germany would be via a new undersea cable, and
in 2011 Inter RAO and Alpiq agreed to investigate an 800 MWe undersea DC
link to Germany's grid. Some €1 billion in transmission infrastructure
would be required. There is already some transmission capacity east
through Lithuania and Belarus to the St Petersburg region if that were
added to the options. The European equity would be in order to secure
markets for the power. Lithuania was invited to consider the prospect,
instead of building Visaginas as a Baltic states plus Poland project,
but declined. However in April 2014 Rosatom said the Baltic plant was
designed to “operate within the unified grid of the Baltics and
North-West of Russia”. But now, due to potential isolation of the
Kaliningrad Region grid*, Rosatom “has to rebuild its project
completely.” The polar crane was delivered in August 2014.
* Lithuania’s revised energy policy in 2012
involves rebuilding its grid to be independent of the Russian/Belarus
system and to work in with the European Network of Transmission System
Operators (ENTSO) synchronous system, as well as strengthening
interconnection among the three Baltic states.
Czech power utility CEZ earlier expressed interest in the project, as
did Iberdrola from Spain, whose engineering subsidiary already works at
Kola, Balakovo and Novovoronezh nuclear power plants. In April 2010
Enel signed a wide-ranging agreement with Inter RAO which positioned it
to take up to 49% of the plant, but this did not proceed. Rosatom
earlier said that the project would not be delayed if 49% private equity
or long-term sales contracts were not forthcoming.
However, in June 2013 construction was suspended due to lack of
interest in the project from the Baltic states, Poland and Germany, all
of whom have historical issues regarding Russia and/or Kaliningrad.
NIAEP said it was investigating building some small nuclear plants in
Kaliningrad instead – eight 40 MWe units such as those on floating
nuclear power plants was mentioned as a possibility, and they would fit
into the local energy system better, with its 500 MWe total requirement.
In mid-2014 Rosenergoatom was considering VVER-600 from Gidropress with
many of the same components as the original, and VBER-600 from OKBM,
the latter being less developed so involving a two-year delay. A new
schedule and site configuration, involving small units, was to be
approved by mid-2014, but there had been no news of this to March 2015.
Meanwhile manufacture and supply of equipment has continued and it is
being stored on site in ten warehouses. See also grid implications in Electricity Transmission Grids paper.
As well as the Baltic plant, two other ventures with Rusal (see below) will apparently require private equity.
Tver
The plant at Udomlya district and 4 km from Kalinin was being
designed by Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN-AEP), and in January
2010 it was announced that Rostechnadzor would conduct an environmental
review of it for the first two VVER-1200 units, these being on the
general scheme of electricity generators deployment to 2020. No firm
dates have been given for the project, though a site development licence
was expected in March 2010.
Pevek
Energoatom signed a RUR 9.98 billion purchase contract for the first
floating nuclear power plant for Vilyuchinsk, on the Kamchatka Peninsula
in the Far East, in July 2009. The 2x35 MWe plant, named Academician Lomonosov,
is due to be completed in 2011 and commissioned in 2012, but the
project is delayed due to shipyard insolvency. The two reactors were
installed in October 2013, and the shipyard expects to deliver the plant
to Rosenergoatom in September 2016. See FNPP subsection below.
Dimitrovgrad
In December 2009 AKME-Engineering was set up by Rosatom and a partner
to develop and operate a pilot power generating plant (PPGP), a 100 MWe
SVBR unit, at Dimitrovgrad by 2017.* The design is also known as the
MTBF-100. In 2010 AKME-Engineering contracted with Atomenergoproekt to
design the pilot SVBR-100, with the RF State Research Centre Institute
for Physics & Power Engineering (IPPE) at Obninsk. Construction at
the State Scientific Centre – Research Institute for Atomic Reactors
(NIIAR) is scheduled to take 42 months, from 2015 to late 2018. In
February 2013 AKME signed a contract with KomplektEnergo to supply the
steam turbine for the pilot unit in 2016 and commission it in 2017. In
May 2013 AKME-engineering was licensed for construction and operation of
nuclear plants by Rostechnadzor, and in June AKME-Engineering secured
the site adjacent to NIIAR. While site works had started in 2013, the
official site permit was issued in February 2015. Rosatom explained that
for designs developed on technological platforms not previously used in
civil nuclear power, a siting licence issued by the regulatory
authorities means acceptance of the design in terms of safety and its
conformity with requirements of federal standards and rules. The company
will now apply to Rostechnadzor for a construction licence.
* AKME-Engineering was set up by Rosatom and the
En+ Group (a subsidiary of Russian Machines Co/ Basic Element Group) as a
50-50 JV. In 2011 JSC Irkutskenergo, an En+ subsidiary, took over the
En+ 50% share. The main project participants are OKB Gidropress at
Podolsk, VNIPIET OAO at St Petersburg, and the RF State Research Centre
Institute for Physics & Power Engineering (IPPE) at Obninsk. The
project cost was estimated at RUR 16 billion, and En+ was prepared to
put in most of this, with Rosatom contributing the technology, based on
naval experience. Since this is thus a public-private partnership, it
was not basically funded from the federal budget. In 2014 a commercial
partner was still being sought.
UES was reported to support construction of new nuclear plants in the
regions of Yaroslavl, Chelyabinsk (South Urals) and Vladimir, with two
to four units at each.
Further Power Reactors Proposed, uncertain status
| Unit | Type | MWe each gross | Start construction |
| Leningrad II 5-6 |
VVER-1200
|
1200
|
|
| North-west 1 & 2 |
BWR VK-300
|
300
|
|
| Plants with low priority for UES: | |||
| Bashkira 1-4 |
PWR
|
||
| Far East 1-4 | PWR, 1/3 for Rusal smelter | 1000 | |
Transition to Fast Reactors
The principal scheme of innovative nuclear power for Russia based on
new technology platform envisages full recycling of fuel, balancing
thermal and fast reactors, so that 100 GWe of total capacity requires
only about 100 tonnes of input per year, from enrichment tails, natural
uranium and thorium, with minor actinides being burned. About 100 t/yr
of fission product wastes go to a geological repository. The BN-series
fast reactor plans are part of Rosatom's so-called Proryv, or
"Breakthrough," project, to develop fast reactors with a closed fuel
cycle whose mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel will be reprocessed and recycled.
The BN-800 Beloyarsk 4 fast reactor designed by OKBM
Afrikantov was intended to replace the BN-600 unit 3 at Beloyarsk,
though the RUR 64 billion (US$ 2.05 billion) project was delayed by lack
of funds following construction start in 2006. It was represented as
the first Generation III reactor which, after 2020, will start to take a
large share of Russian capacity as older designs are phased out. Fast
reactors are projected as comprising some 14 GWe by 2030 and 34 GWe of
capacity by 2050.
This first (and probably only Russian) BN-800 unit started up in June
2014 and was expected to achieve commercial operation in 2015, though
it is essentially a demonstration unit for fuel and design features for
the BN-1200. Rosenergoatom said that "for us, the BN-800 is not only the
basis for development of a closed nuclear fuel cycle. It is also a test
case for technical solutions that will later be used for commercial
production of the BN-1200. Among other things, the BN-800 must answer
questions about the economic viability of potential fast reactors ... if
such a unit has more functions than to generate electricity, then it
becomes economically attractive. That's what we have to find out.” The
Beloyarsk NPP Director said that “the main objective of the BN-800 is
[to provide] operating experience and technological solutions that will
be applied to the BN-1200.” Rosatom’s scientific and technology council
is to review the situation by mid 2015.
The first of 2000 tonnes of sodium coolant (from France) was
introduced to the BN-800 in January 2013. Initial fuel is uranium (about
75%) plus some MOX fuel assemblies. It is to change over to full load
of pelletised MOX fuel by 2017 when the Zheleznogorsk MCC plant gets
into full production and the fuel is tested. Initial vibropacked fuel
will be made by NIIAR and pelletised MOX at PA Mayak. The unit is
intended to demonstrate the use of MOX fuel at industrial scale,
including that made from weapons plutonium, and justify the closed fuel
cycle technology. Further reactor details in our Advanced Reactors paper.
In May 2009 St Petersburg Atomenergopoekt (SPb AEP, now Atomproekt)
said it was starting design work on a BN-800 reactor for China, where
two were planned at Sanming – Chinese Demonstration Fast Reactors
(CDFR). They would use pelletised MOX fuel, initially from MCC. A
high-level agreement was signed in October 2009, then another in
November 2012, and an intergovernmental agreement relating to them was
expected in 2012, but is still pending in 2015, and the project was
reported to be suspended indefinitely. NIAEP-Atomstroyexport said in
July 2014 that a framework contract and contract for engineering design
was expected by the end of the year.
The BN-1200 reactor is being developed by OKBM
Afrikantov in Zarechny, and the design was expected to be complete by
the end of 2014 with related R&D completed in 2016, partly funded by
federal nuclear technology program. Design completion is now expected
in 2017. The design is expected to significantly improve upon that of
the BN-800. Rosatom sees this as a “Generation IV design with natural
security” – an element of the Proryv (breakthrough) Project*, with
closed fuel cycle. See reactor details in the Advanced Reactors paper.
* for large fast reactors, BN series and BREST.
OKBM expected the first BN-1200 unit with MOX fuel to be commissioned
in 2020, then eight more to 2030, moving to dense nitride U-Pu fuel.
SPb AEP (merged with VNIPIET to become Atomproekt) is the general
designer. Rosatom's Science and Technology Council in 2011 approved the
BN-1200 reactor for Beloyarsk, and Rosatom expected to commit to this
construction, once the BN-800 is operating. In May 2012 Rosenergoatom
started environmental assessment for a BN-1200 unit as Beloyarsk 5, with
an evaporative cooling tower. In April 2015 Rosenergoatom said that
construction decision would be delayed to at least 2020, as it wanted to
improve the fuel and review the economic viability of the project.
Federal financing and Rosatom funds of RUR 102 billion ($3.3 billion)
are envisaged.
OKBM envisages about 11 GWe of BN-1200 plants by 2030, possibly
including South Urals NPP. The Chelyabinsk regional government has
reported that three units are to be built at South Urals plant, coming
on line from 2021. In November 2013 the Regional Energy Planning Scheme
included construction of two BN-1200 units at South Urals by 2030.
Moving in the other direction, and downsizing from BN-800 etc, a pilot 100 MWe SVBR-100
unit is planned to be built next to RIIAR Dimitrovgrad by
AKME-Engineering by about 2017. This is a modular lead-bismuth cooled
fast neutron reactor design from OKB Gidropress, and is intended to meet
regional needs in Russia and abroad. RUR 13.23 billion was allocated
for this in February 2010, including RUR 3.75 billion from the federal
budget. Rosatom is looking for additional investors. The cost has
increased to RUR 36 billion. Details below and in the Small Nuclear Power Reactors paper.
Rosatom put forward two fast reactor implementation options for
government decision in relation to the Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Federal Program 2010-2020. The first focused on a lead-cooled fast
reactor such as BREST with its fuel cycle, and assumed
mobilisation of all available resources on this project with a total
funding of about RUR 140 billion (about $3.1 billion). The second
multi-track option was favoured, since it involved lower risks than the
first. It would result in technical designs of the Generation IV reactor
and associated closed fuel cycles technologies by 2014, and a
technological basis of the future innovative nuclear energy system
featuring the Generation IV reactors working in closed fuel cycles by
2020. A detailed design would be developed for a multi-purpose fast
neutron research reactor (MBIR) by 2014 also. This second option was
designed to attract more funds apart from the federal budget allocation,
was favoured by Rosatom, and was accepted.
In January 2010 the government approved the federal target program
(FTP) "New-generation nuclear energy technologies for the period
2010-2015 and up to 2020" designed to bring a new technology platform
for the nuclear power industry based on fast neutron reactors. It
anticipated RUR 110 billion to 2020 out of the federal budget, including
RUR 60 billion for fast reactors, and subsequent announcements started
to allocate funds among three types: BREST, SVBR and continuing R&D
on sodium cooled types. The FTP implementation will enable
commercializing new fast neutron reactors for Russia to build over
2020-2030. Rosatom's long-term strategy up to 2050 involves moving to
inherently safe nuclear plants using fast reactors with a closed fuel
cycle and MOX or nitride fuel.
Federal target Program Funding for Fast Neutron Reactors to 2020
| cooling | Demonstration reactor | timing | Construction RUR billion | R&D RUR billion | Total RUR billion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb-Bi cooled | SVBR 100 MWe | by 2017 | 10.153 | 3.075 | 13.228 |
| Na cooled | (BN-600, BN-800) | to 2016 | 0 | 5.366 | 5.366 |
| Pb cooled | BREST 300 MWe | 2016-20 | 15.555 | 10.143 | 25.698 |
| multiple | MBIR 150 MWt | 2012-20 | 11.390 | 5.042 | 16.432 |
| Total: | 37.1 | 60.7 |
Source: Government decree #50, 2010. Mosr (RUR 9.5 billion) of the funding for SVBR construction is from "other sources".
In September 2012 Rosatom announced that a pilot demonstration BREST-300
fast reactor with associated fuel cycle facilities including dense
nitride fuel fabrication would be built at the Siberian Chemical Combine
in Seversk, near Tomsk. A construction schedule was presented at a
Proryv (breakthrough) Project meeting at SCC in March 2013. SCC hopes to
obtain a siting licence for BREST-OD-300 in 2014. The State
Environmental Commission of the Federal Service for Supervision of
Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor) issued a positive statement on the
construction licence application package for the pilot demonstration
power complex (PDPC) and fuel fabrication module in June 2014.
Rostechnadzor now needs to give approval. The PDPC comprises three
phases: the fuel fabrication/re-fabrication module, a nuclear power
plant with BREST-OD-300 reactor, and used nuclear fuel reprocessing
module. In April 2014 the fuel fabrication/re-fabrication module was
granted a positive statement by the State Expert Review Authority of
Russia.
A decision to proceed depends on successful testing of the nitride
fuel in BN-600 reactor from the end of 2013. The reactor commissioning
is set for 2020. RUR 25 billion ($809 million) has been budgeted for the
reactor and RUR 17 billion ($550 million) for the fuel cycle
facilities, though it appears that only RUR 15.555 billion would come
from the federal budget. NIKIET finished the BREST design in 2014, to
allow construction over 2016-20. If it is successful as a 300 MWe unit, a
1200 MWe (2800 MWt) version will follow.
Starting 2020-25 it is envisaged that fast neutron power reactors
will play an increasing role in Russia, though these will probably be
new designs such as BREST with a single core and no blanket assembly for
plutonium production. An optimistic scenario has expansion to 90 GWe
nuclear capacity by 2050.
Design of the 150 MWt multi-purpose fast neutron research reactor (MBIR)
was finalised in 2014 and the contract let to AEM-Technologies, with
completion expected in 2020 at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors
(RIAR or NIIAR) in Dimitrovgrad. It will be a multi-loop research
reactor capable of testing lead, lead-bismuth and gas coolants, and
running on MOX fuel. It will be part of an international research centre
at RIAR’s site. Rostechnadzor granted a site licence to RIAR in August
2014 and a construction licence in May 2015. The project is open to
foreign collaboration, in connection with the IAEA INPRO program. See
also R&D section in the paper on Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
See also Fast Reactors, in the Reactor Technology section below.
Aluminium and nuclear power
In 2006 the major aluminium producer SUAL (which in March 2007 became
part of RUSAL) signed an agreement with Rosatom to support investment
in new nuclear capacity at Kola, to power expanded
aluminium smelting there from 2013. Four units totalling 1000 MWe were
envisaged for Kola stage 2 underpinned by a 25-year contract with SUAL,
but economic feasibility is in doubt and the project appears to have
been dropped and replaced by two others.
Since 2007 Rosatom and RUSAL, now the world's largest aluminium and
alumina producer, have been undertaking a feasibility study on a nuclear
power generation and aluminium smelter at Primorye in Russia's far east.
This proposal is taking shape as a US$ 10 billion project involving
four 1000 MWe reactors and a 600,000 t/yr smelter with Atomstroyexport
having a controlling share in the nuclear side. The smelter would
require about one third of the output from 4 GWe, and electricity
exports to China and North and South Korea are envisaged.
In October 2007 a $8 billion project was announced for the world's biggest aluminium smelter at Balakovo in
the Saratov region, complete with two new nuclear reactors to power it.
The 1.05 million tonne per year aluminium smelter is to be built by
RUSAL and would require about 15 billion kWh/yr. The initial plan was
for the existing Balakovo nuclear power plant of four 950 MWe reactors
to be expanded with two more, already partly constructed* – the smelter
would require a little over one-third of the output of the expanded
power plant. However, in February 2010 it was reported that RUSAL
proposed to build its own 2000 MWe nuclear power station, Balakovo AES2,
with construction to start in 2011. The overall budget for the energy
and metals complex was estimated by the Minister of Investment in the
Saratov District to be about $12 billion. Land has been allotted for the
project and design has commenced. Aluminium smelting is
energy-intensive and requires reliable low-cost electricity to be
competitive. Increasingly it is also carbon-constrained – this smelter
will emit about 1.7 million tonnes of CO2 per year just from anode
consumption.
* Construction of Phase II of Balakovo
plant, started in 1987, was stopped in 1992. At that time, unit 5 was
60% complete and unit 6 was 15% - both VVER-1000. From mid 2000
Rosenergoatom prepared Balakovo II for construction completion. However,
then Rusal decided against the plan, and in 2009 Rosatom announced
freezing the project. In 2015 it called for bids to mothball the project
by 2019
RUSAL announced an agreement with the regional government which would
become effective when the nuclear plant expansion is approved by
Rosatom or an alternative is agreed. Balakovo units 5 & 6 have been
listed as prospective for some time but were dropped off the 2007-08
Rosatom plan for completing 26 new power reactors by 2020 as they were
low priority for UES grid supply. Balakovo is on the Volga River 800 km
SE of Moscow.
Meanwhile, and relevant to these proposals, in 2011 Renova's
Integrated Energy Systems (IES) Holding, Russia’s largest
privately-owned power producer and supplier, agreed to sell its 141 MWe
Bogoslovskaya CHP plant to RUSAL in mid 2012, along with the rights to
develop a new 230 MWe combined cycle gas turbine unit at the plant, in
the central region of Sverdlovsk. This deal, along with another for a
supply contract from the Federal Grid Company, enables RUSAL's
Bogoslovosk smelter to continue operating. These arrangements were made
at presidential level, and will absolve the Bogoslovskaya smelter from
paying the cross-subsidy from industrial consumers to other electricity
users that is inherent in the general distribution tariff.
Nuclear icebreakers and merchant ship
Nuclear propulsion has proven technically and economically essential
in the Russian Arctic where operating conditions are beyond the
capability of conventional icebreakers. The power levels required for
breaking ice up to 3 metres thick, coupled with refuelling difficulties
for other types of vessels, are significant factors. The nuclear fleet
has increased Arctic navigation on the Northern Sea Route (NSR) from two
to ten months per year, and in the Western Arctic, to year-round.
Greater use of the icebreaker fleet is expected with developments on the
Yamal Peninsula and further east. For instance the Yamal LNG project is
expected to need 200 shipping movements per year from Sabetta at the
mouth of the Ob River. The fleet is operated by Atomflot, a Rosatom
division, and is commercially vital to northern mineral and oil/gas
developments. The newest icebreakers being built have 34-metre beam,
able to open a path for large ships.
The icebreaker Lenin was the world’s first nuclear-powered surface
vessel (20,000 dwt) and remained in service for 30 years (1959-89),
though new reactors were fitted in 1970.
It led to a series of larger icebreakers, the six 23,500 dwt
Arktika-class, launched from 1975. These powerful vessels have two 171
MWt OK-900 reactors delivering 54 MW at the propellers and are used in
deep Arctic waters. The Arktika was the first surface vessel to reach
the North Pole, in 1977. The seventh and largest Arktika class
icebreaker – 50 Years of Victory (50 Let Pobedy) entered service in
2007. It is 25,800 dwt, 160 m long and 20m wide, and is designed to
break through ice up to 2.8 metres thick. Its performance in service has
been impressive.
For use in shallow waters such as estuaries and rivers, two
shallow-draught Taymyr-class icebreakers of 18,260 dwt with one reactor
delivering 35 MW were built in Finland and then fitted with their
nuclear steam supply system in Russia. They are built to conform with
international safety standards for nuclear vessels and were launched
from 1989.
Larger third-generation 'universal' LK-60 icebreakers are being built
as dual-draught (8.55 or 10.5m) wide-beam (34m) ships of 25,450 dwt or
33,540 dwt with ballast, able to handle three metres of ice. In August
2012 the United Shipbuilding Corporation won the contract for the first
new-generation LK-60 icebreaker powered by two RITM-200 reactors of 175
MWt each, delivering 60 MW at the propellers via twin turbine-generators
and three motors. They would be built by subsidiary Baltijsky Zavod
Shipbuilding. Rosatomflot expects to have the pilot version commissioned
in 2018 at a cost of RUR 37 billion. In January 2013 Rosatom called for
bids to build two more of these universal icebreaker vessels (project
22220), for delivery in 2019 and 2020, and in May 2104 a contract for
RUR 84.4 billion ($2.4 billion) was signed with USC, the vessels to be
built at the same shipyard. In August 2013 Rostechnadzor licensed
Baltijsky Zavod Shipbuilding to install the RITM-200 reactor units from
OKBM Afrikantov for the pilot model. The keel of Arctica was laid in November 2013, and that of Sibir in May 2015.
A more powerful LC-110 icebreaker of 110 MW net and 55,600 dwt is
planned, to be capable of breaking through ice up to 4.5 m thick. The
first vessel will be the Leader with 50 m beam to match large tankers.
Diagram of LK-60 icebreaker (Source: Rosatom)
In 1988 the NS Sevmorput was commissioned in Russia, mainly to serve
northern Siberian ports. It is a 61,900 tonne 260 m long lash-carrier
(taking lighters to ports with shallow water) and container ship with
ice-breaking bow. It is powered by the same KLT-40 reactor as used in
larger icebreakers, delivering 32.5 propeller MW from the 135 MWt
reactor and it needed refuelling only once to 2003.
Russian experience with nuclear powered Arctic ships totals about 300
reactor-years in 2009. In 2008 the Arctic fleet was transferred from
the Murmansk Shipping Company under the Ministry of Transport to FSUE
Atomflot, under Rosatom.
Floating nuclear power plants (FNPP)
Rosatom was planning to build seven or eight floating nuclear power
plants by 2015. The first of them was to be constructed and tehn remain
at Severodvinsk with intended completion in 2010, but plans changed.
Each FNPP has two 35 MWe KLT-40S nuclear reactors. (If primarily for
desalination this set-up is known as APVS-80.) The operating life is
envisaged as 38 years: three 12-year campaigns with a year's maintenance
outage in between.
A decision to commit to building a series is envisaged in 2014 when
the first is near commissioning. The actual hulls might be built in
South Korea or China, and fitted out in Russia. Rosenergoatom earlier
signed an agreement with JSC Kirov Factory to build further units, and
Kirov subsidiary Kirov Energomash was expected to be the main
non-nuclear contractor on these.
The keel of the first floating nuclear power plant, named Academician Lomonosov,
was laid in April 2007 at Sevmash in Severodvinsk, but in August 2008
Rosatom cancelled the contract (apparently due to the military workload
at Sevmash) and transferred it to the Baltiysky Zavod shipyard
at St Petersburg, which has experience in building nuclear icebreakers.
After signing a new RUR 9.98 billion contract in February, new
keel-laying took place in May 2009 and the two reactors were delivered
from OKBM Afrikantov by August. The 21,500 tonne hull (144 metres long,
30 m wide) was launched at the end of June 2010.
The site originally planned for its deployment was Vilyuchinsk,
Kamchatka peninsula, to ensure sustainable electricity and heat supplies
to the naval base there. Completion and towing to the site is expected
in 2012 and grid connection in 2013, but due to insolvency of the
shipyard JSC Baltijsky Zavod* and ensuing legal processes it is delayed
considerably. Barely any work was done over 2011-12 after some RUR 2
billion allocated to finance the construction apparently disappeared.
The state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation acquired the shipyard in
2012 and a new contract with Baltijsky Zavod-Sudostroyeniye (BZS), the
successor of the bankrupt namesake, was signed in December 2012. The
cost of completing the FNPP was then put at RUR 7.631 billion ($248
million). The two reactors were installed in October 2013. Rosenergoatom
now hopes to take delivery in September 2016. In June 2009
Rostechnadzor approved the environmental review for the siting license
for the facility, as well as the justification of investment in it.
* a subsidiary of privately-owned United Industrial Corporation.
The reactor assembling and acceptance tests were carried out at
Nizhniy Novgorod Machine Engineering Plant (NMZ). Three companies had
contributed: OKBM (development of design and technical follow-up of the
manufacture and testing), Izhorskiye Zavody (manufacture of the reactor
pressure vessel), and NMZ (manufacture of component parts and reactor
assembling). The revised cost was reported as being RUR 16 billion (RUR
229,000/kW), but this figure was expected to fall for subsequent units.
The second plant of this size was planned for Pevek on the Chukotka
peninsula in the Chaun district of the far northeast, near Bilibino, and
designed to replace it and a 35 MWe thermal plant as a major component
of the Chaun-Bilibino industrial hub. However, at the end of 2012 the
Ministries of Defence, Energy and Industry agreed to make Pevek the site
for the delayed first FNPP unit. Roesenergoatom said that the tariff
revenue of Chukotka made it more attractive than the Vilyuchinsk naval
base, which is expected to have natural gas connected in 2014. Although
the Chukotka government has expressed scepticism about costs of power,
as of October 2014 it appears that Pevek will be the site for the first
plant, from 2017.
The third site is Chersky or Sakha in Yakutia. In June 2010 a
"roadmap" for deployment of up to eight further FNPPs was expected, on
the occasion of launching the barge for the first, but it has not
appeared. As of early 2009, four floating plants were designated for
northern Yakutia in connection with the Elkon uranium mining project in
southern Yakutia, and in 2007 an agreement was signed with the Sakha
Republic (northeast Yakutia region) to build one of them, using smaller
ABV-6 reactors. Five were intended for use by Gazprom for offshore oil
and gas field development and for operations on the Kola peninsula near
Finland and the Yamal peninsula in central Siberia. There is also
perceived to be considerable export potential for the FNPPs, on a
fully-serviced basis. Electricity cost is expected to be much lower than
from present alternatives.
In May 2014 the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) signed an
agreement with Rosatom to cooperate in construction of floating nuclear
cogeneration plants for China offshore islands. These would be built in
China but be based on Russian technology, and possibly using Russian
KLT-40S reactors.
The larger end of the Russian FNPP range would use a pair of 325 MWe
VBER-300 reactors on a 49,000 tonne barge, and a smaller one could use a
pair of RITM-200 reactors on a 17,500 t barge, as successor to the
KLT-40. ATETs-80 and ATETs-200 are twin-reactor cogeneration units using
KLT-40 and may be floating or land-based. The former produces 85 MWe
plus 120,000 m3/day of potable water.
The small ABV-6 reactor is 38 MW thermal and a pair mounted on a
97-metre, 8700 tonne barge is known as Volnolom floating NPP, producing
12-18 MWe plus 40,000 m3/day of potable water by reverse osmosis.
As well as FNPPs, NIKIET is developing a sunken power plant which
will sit on the sea bed supplying electricity for Arctic oil and gas
development. This is SHELF, 6 MWe integral PWR. Details in the R&D section of the paper on Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Heating
In addition, 5 GW of thermal power plants (mostly AST-500 integral
PWR type) for district and industrial heat will be constructed at
Arkhangelesk (4 VK-300 units commissioned to 2016), Voronezh (2 units
2012-18), Saratov, Dimitrovgrad and (small-scale, KLT-40 type PWR) at
Chukoyka and Severodvinsk. Russian nuclear plants provided 11.4 PJ of
district heating in 2005, and this is expected to increase to 30.8 PJ by
about 2010. (A 1000 MWe reactor produces about 95 PJ per year
internally to generate the electricity.)
Heavy engineering and turbine generators
The main reactor component supplier is OMZ's Komplekt-Atom-Izhora
facility which is doubling the production of large forgings so as to be
able to manufacture three or four pressure vessels per year from 2011.
OMZ subsidiary Izhorskiye Zavody is expected to produce the forgings for
all new domestic AES-2006 model VVER-1200 nuclear reactors (four per
year from 2016) plus exports. At present Izhora can produce the heavy
high-quality forgings required for Russia's VVER-1000 pressurized water
reactors at the rate of two per year. These forgings include reactor
pressure vessels, steam generators, and heavy piping. In 2008 the
company rebuilt its 12,000 tonne hydraulic press, claimed to be the
largest in Europe, and a second stage of work will increase that
capacity to 15,000 tonnes.
In May 2012 Rosenergoatom said that rector pressure vessels for its
VVER-TOI reactors would be made by both Izhorskiye Zavody and the
Ukrainian works Energomashspetsstal (EMSS) with Russian
Petrozavodskmash.
Petrozavodskmash makes steam generators and has the contract for RPV
and various internals for Baltic 1 reactor. Izhorskiye Zavody is
expected to supply these components for unit 2.
ZiO-Podolsk also makes steam generators, including those for Belene/ Kozloduy 7.
Turbine generators for the new plants are mainly from Power Machines
(Silovye Mashiny – Silmash) subsidiary LMZ, which has six orders for
high-speed (3000 rpm) turbines: four of 1200 MWe for Novovoronezh and
Leningrad, plus smaller ones for Kalinin and Beloyarsk. The company
plans also to offer 1200 MWe low-speed (1500 rpm) turbine generators
from 2014, and is investing RUB 6 billion in a factory near St
Petersburg to produce these. Silmash is 26% owned by Siemens.
Alstom Atomenergomash (AAEM) is a joint venture between French
turbine manufacturer Alstom and Atomenergomash (AEM, an AEP subsidiary),
which will produce low-speed turbine generators based on Alstom's
Arabelle design, sized from 1200 to 1800 MWe. The Baltic plant will be
the first customer, in a RUB 35 billion order, with Russian content
about 50%. This will increase to over 70% for subsequent projects. It
will produce the Arabelle units at AEM's newly-acquired Atommash plant
at Volgodonsk for delivery in 2015.
Ukraine's Turboatom is offering a 1250 MWe low-speed turbine
generator for the VVER-TOI. Rosenergoatom says it insists on having at
least two turbine vendors, and prefers three.
Reactor Technology
In September 2006 the technology future for Russia was focused on four elements:
- Serial construction of AES-2006 units, with increased service life to 60 years,
- Fast breeder BN-800,
- Small and medium reactors – KLT-40 and VBER-300,
- High temperature reactors (HTR).
VVER-1000, AES-92, AES-91
The main reactor design being deployed until now has been the V-320 version of the VVER-1000
pressurised water reactor with 950-1000 MWe net output. It is from OKB
Gidropress (Experimental Design Bureau Hydropress), has 30-year basic
design life and dates from the 1980s. A later version of this for export
is the V-392, with enhanced safety and seismic features, as the basis
of the AES-92 power plant. All models have four coolant loops, with
horizontal steam generators. Maximum burn-up is 60 GWd/tU. VVER stands
for water-cooled, water-moderated energy reactor.
Advanced versions of this VVER-1000 with western instrument and
control systems have been built at Tianwan in China and are being built
at Kudankulam in India - as AES-91 and AES-92 nuclear power plants
respectively. The former was bid for Finland in 2002 and for Sanmen and
Yangjiang in China in 2005, while the AES-92 was accepted for Belene in
Bulgaria in 2006. These have 40-year design life. (Major components of
the two designs are the same except for slightly taller pressure vessel
in AES-91, but cooling and safety systems differ. The AES-92 has greater
passive safety features features - 12 heat exchangers for passive decay
heat removal, the AES-91 has extra seismic protection. The V-428 in the
AES-91 is the first Russian reactor to have a core-catcher, V-412 in
AES-92 also has core catcher.)
VVER-1200, AES-2006, MIR-1200
Development of a third-generation standardised VVER-1200 reactor of about 1170 MWe net folloowed, as the basis of the AES-2006
power plant. Rosatom drew upon Gidropress, OKBM, Kurchatov Institute,
Rosenergoatom, Atomstroyexport, three Atomenergoproekt outfits, VNIINPP
and others. Two design streams emerged: one from Atomproekt in St
Petersburg with V-491 reactor, and one from Atomenergoproekt in Moscow
with V-392M reactor.
Both versions provide about 1200 MWe gross from 3200 MWt, along with
about 300 MWt for district heating. This is an evolutionary development
of the well-proven VVER-1000/V-320 and then the third-generation V-392
in the AES-92 plant (or the AES-91 for Atomproekt version), with longer
life (60 years for non-replaceable equipment, not 30), greater power,
and greater thermal efficiency (34.8% net instead of 31.6%). Compared
with the V-392, it has the same number of fuel assemblies (163) but a
wider pressure vessel, slightly higher operating pressure and
temperature (329ºC outlet), and higher burn-up (up to 70 GWd/t). It
retains four coolant loops. Refueling cycle is up to 24 months. Core
catchers filled with non-metallic materials are under the pressure
vessels. Construction time for serial units is "no more than 54 months".
The lead units are being built at Novovoronezh II (V-392M), to start
operation in 2014-15, and at Leningrad II (V-491) for 2016-18. Both
plants will use Areva's Teleperm safety instrument and control systems.
Seversk, South Ural and Central are listed by Moscow Atomenergoproekt as
the next projects. Atomproekt’s Leningrad II with V-491 reactor is
quoted as the reference plant for further units at Tianwan in China. The
two AES-2006 plants are very similar apart from safety systems
configuration.
The Novovoronezh V-392M units are expected to provide 1200 MWe gross,
1068 MWe net. Atomernergoproekt Moscow has installed what it calls dry
protection here, a 144-tonne structure surrounding the reactor core that
reduces emission of radiation and heat. It consists of a steel cylinder
with double walls, 7m diameter, with the space between them filled with
specially formulated concrete. This gives it better aircraft crash
resistance than V-491. They have passive decay heat removal by air
circulation.
The Leningrad V-491 has water tanks high up in the structure so is
better for Finland and central Europe rather than seismic sites (DBGM is
only 120 Gal). The V-392M requires less water for safety systems, and
can be air-cooled for decay heat.
Atomproekt’s Leningrad V-491 units are expected to provide 1200 MWe
gross. They have four trains of active safety systems, with water tanks
high up in the structure to provide water cooling for decay heat, and is
more suited to Finland and central Europe rather than seismic sites
(DBGM is only 250 Gal). Atomproekt’s AES-2006 has two steam turbine
variants: Russian Silmash high-speed version for Russia, or Alstom
Arabelle low-speed turbine as proposed for Hanhikivi and MIR-1200
(Silmash plans to produce low-speed turbines from 2014).
A typical AES-2006 plant will be a twin set-up with two of these OKB
Gidropress V-491 or V-392M reactor units expected to run for 60 years
with capacity factor of 92%, and probably with Silmash turbine
generators. Capital cost was said to be US$ 1200/kW (though the first
contract of them is more like $2100/kW) and construction time 54 months.
They have enhanced safety including that related to earthquakes and
aircraft impact with some passive safety features and double
containment.
For Europe, the basic Atomproekt V-491 St Petersburg version has been slightly modified by Atomproekt as the MIR-1200
(Modernized International Reactor), and bid for Temelin 3&4. It is
also selected for Hanhikivi in Finland, as AES-2006 E, with ‘extended
list of accidents and external impacts’ including higher seismic
tolerance. As of late 2014 Gidropress still designated the reactor unit
V-491.
VVER-TOI
A further evolution, or finessing, of Moscow Atomenergoproekt’s
version of the AES-2006 power plant with the V-392M reactor is the
VVER-TOI (typical optimized, with enhanced information) design for the
AES-2010 plant, the VVER-1300 reactor being designated V-510 by
Gidropress. Rosatom says that this is planned to be standard for new
projects in Russia and worldwide, with minor variations. This has an
upgraded pressure vessel with four welds rather than six, and will use a
new steel which “removes nearly all limitations on RPV operation in
terms of radiation embrittlement of metal”, making possible a service
life of more than 60 years with 70 GWd/t fuel burn-up and 18 to 24-month
fuel cycle. It has increased power to 3300 MWt, 1255 MWe gross
(nominally 1300), improved core design still with 163 fuel assemblies to
increase cooling reliability, larger steam generators, further
development of passive safety with at least 72-hour grace period
requiring no operator intervention after shutdown, lower construction
and operating costs, and 40-month construction time. It is claimed to
require only 130-135 tonnes of natural uranium (compared with typical
190 tU now) per gigawatt year. It will use a low-speed
turbine-generator.
The project was initiated in 2009 and the completed design was
presented to the customer, Rosenergoatom at the end of 2012. The design
aim was to try and save 20% of the cost. It was submitted to
Rostechnadzor in 2013 for licensing, with a view to subsequent
international certification in accordance with EUR requirements as the
standard future export model. EUR approval is seen as basic in many
markets, notably China. In 2012 Rosatom announced that it intended to
apply for UK design certification for the VVER-TOI design with a view to
Rusatom Overseas building them in UK. This application is expected in
2015, in conjunction with Rolls-Royce.
It appears the first units will be at Nizhny Novgorod, then Akkuyu in
Turkey, then Kola II, Kursk II and Smolensk II. In June 2012 Rosatom
said it would apply for VVER-1200 design certification in UK and USA,
through Rusatom Overseas, with the VVER-TOI version. Development
involved OKB Gidropress (chief designer), NRC Kurchatov Institute
(scientific supervisor), All-Russian Scientific and Research Institute
for Nuclear Power Plant Operation (VNIIAES – architect-engineer), and
NIAEP-ASE jointly with Alstom (turbine island designer). V-509 and V-513
reactors are variants of V-510.
A Rosenergoatom account of the safety features of the reactor is on the Nuclear Engineering International website, and Gidropress account.
Russian PWR nuclear power reactors*
| Generic reactor type | Reactor plant model | Whole power plant |
| VBER-300 | (under development) OKBM, 325 MWe gross, based on KLT-40 | |
|---|---|---|
| VVER-200 | - | prototype VVER |
| VVER-440 | V-179 | Novovoronezh 3-4, prototype VVER-440 |
| V-230 | Kola 1-2, Armenia (modified to V-270), EU units closed down | |
| V-213 | Kola 3-4, Loviisa, Paks, Dukovany, Bohunice V2, Mochovce | |
| V-318 | Cuba, based on V-213, full containment & ECCS | |
| VVER-640 | V-407 | (under development), Gen III+, Gidropress |
| VVER-300 | V-478 | (under development. based on V-407), Gen III+, Gidropress |
| VVER-600 | V-498 | (under development, based on V-491), Gen III+, proposed for Baltic, Gidropress |
| VVER-1000 | V-187 | Novovoronezh 5, prototype VVER-1000 |
| V-320 | most Russian & Ukraine plants, Kozloduy 5-6, Temelin | |
| V-338 | Kalinin 1-3, Temelin 1&2, S. Ukraine 2 | |
| V-446 | based on V-392, adapted to previous Siemens work, Bushehr | |
| V-413 | AES-91 | |
| V-428 | AES-91 Tianwan and Vietnam, based on V-392, Gen III | |
| V-428M | Tianwan 4&5, later version | |
| V-412 | AES-92 Kudankulam, based on V-392, Gen III | |
| V-392 | AES-92 – meets EUR standards, Armenia, Khmelnitsky 3-4, Gen III | |
| V-392B | AES-92 | |
| V-466 | AES-91/99 Olkiluoto bid, also Sanmen, developed from V-428, Gen III | |
| V-466B | AES-92 Belene/ Kozloduy 7, developed from V-412 & V-466, 60-year lifetime, 1060 MWe gross, Gen III, Gidropress | |
| VVER-1200 | V-392M | AES-2006 by Moscow AEP and Gidropress, Novovoronezh, Seversk, Central, Smolensk, South Ural, Akkuyu, Rooppur; Developed from V-392 and V-412, Gen III+, 1170 MWe gross, more passive safety than V-491, developed to VVER-TOI. |
| V-491 | AES-2006 Leningrad, Baltic, Belarus, Hanhikivi, Tianwan 7&8, Paks, Ninh Thuan 1; developed from AES-91 V-428 by Atomproekt and Gidropress, Gen III+, 1170 MWe gross, developed to MIR-1200 for EUR Temelin bid. | |
| VVER-1300 | V-488 | AES-2006M, developmental model, Gen III+, Gidropress |
| VVER-1300 | V-510 | AES-2010, VVER-TOI, Gen III+, developed from V-392M, Kursk II, Smolensk II |
| VVER-1200A | V-501 | (concept proposal) AES-2006 but 2-loop, Gen III+ |
| VVER-1500 | V-448 | (under development), Gen III+ |
| VVER-1800 | (concept proposal) | |
| VVER-SCP | V-393 | (concept proposal), supercritical, Gen IV |
AES=NPP. Early V numbers referred to
models which were widely built in several countries, eg V-230, V-320.
Then the V-392 seemed to be a general export version of the V-320. Later
V numbers are fairly project-specific. Broadly the first digit of the
number is the VVER generation, the second is the reactor system and the
third – and any suffix – relates to the building.
Generation III or III+ ratings are as advised by Gidropress, but not necessarily accepted internationally.
* V-392M has two active safety channels, while
V-491 has four, and turbine hall layouts are also different. In the
V-392M there is a focus placed on avoidance of redundancy, aiming at
higher cost-effectiveness of the plant construction and operation. Both
V-392M and V-491 designs include a common emergency core cooling system
(ECCS) passive section, but in the V-392M the ECCS active section is
represented by a combined two-channel high and low pressure system,
while the V-491 utilizes a segregated four-channel high and low pressure
system. The V-392M design features a closed two-channel steam generator
emergency cool-down system, whereas the V491 uses a traditional
four-channel emergency feedwater system. To mitigate consequences of
beyond design basis accidents involving total loss of AC power sources,
both designs use a passive heat removal system, which is air-cooled in
the V-392M and water-cooled in the V-491. Additionally, the V-392M
design is fitted with a four-channel emergency passive core flooding
system.
While Gidropress is responsible for the actual 1200 MWe reactor,
Moscow AEP and Atomproekt St Petersburg are going different ways on the
cooling systems, and one or the other may be chosen for future plants
once Leningrad II and Novovoronezh II are operating. Passive safety
systems prevail in Moscow’s V-392M design, while St Petersburg’s V-491
design focuses on active safety systems based on Tianwan V-428 design.
For the immediate future, Gidropress shows the VVER-1200/V-392M and
V-491 reactors evolving into VVER-1300/V-488 (in AES-2006M power plant)
four-loop designs, and into the VVER-1200A/V-501 (similar, but two-loop
design) reactors in the next few years. This then evolves to the
VVER-1800 with three loops. The AES-2006M has an uprated VVER-1200 with
less conservative design and new steam generators, giving it 1300 MWe.
The VVER-1200A/V-501 is expected to have lower construction cost. The
four-loop VVER-1200 also evolves to the half-sized VVER-600 with only
two loops.
VVER-1500
About 2005 Rosatom (the Federal Atomic Energy Agency) promoted the
basic design for VVER-1500 pressurised water reactors by Gidropress as a
priority. Design was expected to be complete in 2007, but the project
was shelved in 2006. It remains a four-loop design, 42350 MWt producing
1500 MWe gross, with increased pressure vessel diameter to 5 metres, 241
fuel assemblies in core enriched to 4.4%, burn-up up 45-55 and up to 60
GWd/t and life of 60 years. If revived, it will be a Generation III+
model meeting EUR criteria.
Medium VVER
Another reactor type with advanced safety features (passive safety systems) which was under development is the VVER-640
(V-407), an 1800 MWt, 640 MWe unit originally developed by Gidropress
jointly with Siemens. After apparently beginning construction of the
first at Sosnovy Bor, funds ran out and it disappeared from plans.
However, it is back on the drawing boards, now as a Generation III+
type, with four cooling loops, low power density, low-enriched fuel
(3.6%), passive safety systems, 33.6% thermal efficiency and only 45
GWd/t burn-up. In March 2013 SPbAEP (merged with VNIPIET to become
Atomproekt) said that subject to Rosatom approval it could have a
VVER-640 project ready to go possibly at the Kola site by the end of
2014. The project partners – Atomenergomash, OKB Gidropress, Central
Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (CDBME) of the Russian Shipbuilding
Agency, OMZ’s Izhorskiye Zavody, Kurchatov Institute, and VNIPIET –
“confirmed its readiness for updating aiming at commercialization.” In
May 2013 Atomenergoproekt said it has already been discussing with
VNIPIET the feasibility and practicability of using the VVER-640 project
“as the starting point for the development of next-generation
medium-power NPPs, including with the use of passive safety systems”.
Since 2008 OKB Gidropress with SPb AEP and Kurchatov Institute has also been developing a 2-loop VVER-600
(project V-498) from V-491 (1200 MWe, 4-loop), using the same basic
equipment but no core catcher, as a Generation III+ type. In December
2011 it signed a contract with the Design and Engineering Branch of
Rosenergoatom for R&D related to the VVER-600 reactor, though this
is not part of any federal Rosatom program. Gidropress presented the
design to Rosenergoatom in February 2013, saying a project package could
be ready in two years. It will be capable of load-following, and have
60-year life. Rosenergoatom has been considering it for the Baltic plant
site as a straightforward option if the 1200 MWe units are abandoned.
Gidropress is also developing a VVER-300 unit from the delayed VVER-640.
VVER-SKD
A Generation IV Gidropress project in collaboration with Generation
IV International Forum is the supercritical VVER (VVER-SKD or VVER-SCWR)
with higher thermodynamic efficiency (45%) and higher breeding ratio
(0.95) and oriented towards the closed fuel cycle. Focus is on
structural materials and fuels. Size ranges 300 to 1700 MW. The SPA
Central Research Institute of Machine Engineering Technology
(TsNIITMASH) in Moscow and OKB Giidropress are involved in the draft
proposals. OKB Gidropress says that “Such reactors are expected to
increase significantly thermal energy conversion efficiency, move to the
fast neutron spectrum in the reactor core and, by thus, substantially
improve parameters of breeding of the secondary nuclear fuel in the
reactor.”
Fast Reactors
For context, see also above section on Transition to Fast Reactors.
The BN-800 fast neutron (bystry neutron) reactor
from OKBM Afrikantov and Atomproekt being built at Beloyarsk was
designed to supersede the BN-600 unit there and utilise MOX fuel with
both reactor-grade and weapons plutonium. It is 2100 MWt, 864 MWe gross,
789 MWe net, and have fuel burn-up of 66 GWd/t, increasing to 100
GWd/t. Further BN-800 units were planned.
The BN-1200 is being designed by OKBM for operation
with MOX fuel from 2020 and dense nitride U-Pu fuel subsequently, in
closed fuel cycle. Rosatom plans to submit the BN-1200 to the Generation
IV International Forum (GIF) as a Generation IV design. The BN-1200
will produce 2900 MWt (1220 MWe), has a 60-year design life, simplified
refuelling, and burn-up of up to 120 GWd/t. The capital cost is expected
to be much the same as VVER-1200. Design is expected to be complete in
2014. It is intended to produce electricity at RUR 0.65/kWh (US 2.23
cents/kWh). This is part of a federal Rosatom program, the Proryv
(Breakthrough) Project for large fast neutron reactors.
A BN-1800 was briefly under development.
Fast reactors represent a technological advantage for Russia and the
BN-800 has been picked up by China. There is also significant export or
collaborative potential with Japan. In February 2010 a government decree
allocated RUR 5.37 billion funding for sodium-cooled fast reactor
development. In late 2012 Rosatom said that it plans to make available
its experimental facilities for use as part of the GIF, including
specifically large physical test benches at Obninsk’s Institute of
Physics and Power Engineering, the BOR-60 research reactor at NIIAR, and
the future multifunction research reactor MBIR to be built at the NIIAR
site.
Future fast reactors are expected to have an integrated core to
minimise the potential for weapons proliferation from bred Pu-239.
The BREST-300 lead-cooled fast reactor (Bystry
Reaktor so Svintsovym Teplonositelem) is another innovation, from
NIKIET, with the first unit earlier being proposed for Beloyarsk-5. This
will be a new-generation fast reactor which dispenses with the fertile
blanket around the core and supersedes the BN-600/800 design, to give
enhanced proliferation resistance. In February 2010 a government decree
approved RUR 40 billion (US$ 1.3 billion) funding for an initial 300 MWe
BREST unit (at SCC Seversk rather than Beloyarsk) over 2016-20. See
also Advanced Reactors paper.
The SVBR-100 (Svintsovo-Vismutovyi Bystryi Reaktor – lead-bismuth fast reactor)
is a modular lead-bismuth cooled fast neutron reactor designed by OKB
Gidropress in Podolsk and the Institute for Physics and Power
Engineering (IPPE), so that larger power plants are built incrementally
and comprise several 100 MWe modules. The project is being undertaken by
AKME-engineering – a 50-50 joint venture of Rosatom and private company
En+ Group. The demonstration 101 MWe pilot commercial power unit (PCPU)
unit is planned to be built next to RIAR Dimitrovgrad by 2019. However,
in December 2014 Rosatom said that the cost had blown out to RUR 36
billion ($704 million), more than twice the RUR 15 billion original
estimate, making it “less commercially attractive”, and Rosatom was
having second thoughts.
Each 100 MWe fast reactor module with lead-bismuth primary coolant is
4.5 x 8.2 metres, built in factories and delivered to site. The 280 MWt
reactor has integral design and forced convection circulation of
primary coolant at up to 500°C with two main circulation pumps but
passive cooling after shutdown. Fuel is low-enriched (16.5%) uranium or
MOX initially, later possibly nitride. Refueling interval is 7-8 years
and there is no breeding blanket. Design life is 60 years. It is
proposed as a replacement for Novovoronezh 3&4 (in the present
reactor halls), and for Kozloduy in Bulgaria. It is described by
Gidropress as a multi-function reactor, for power, heat or desalination,
to meet regional needs in Russia and abroad. Serial production is
envisaged from 2024. Rosatom is seeking additional investors in the
project to enable it to proceed, but has said that it is not negotiating
with China on the matter. See Small Nuclear Reactors paper.
Another new reactor, also described as a multi-function fast reactor – MBIR – is to be built at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR) at Dimitrovgrad. See R&D section in the Russian Fuel Cycle paper since this is not essentially a power reactor.
Small Floating VVERs
After many years of promoting the idea, in 2006 Rosatom approved
construction of a nuclear power plant on a barge (floating power module –
FPM) to supply power and heat to isolated coastal towns. See Floating
Nuclear Power Plant subsection above.
Two OKBM Afrikantov KLT-40S or KLT-40C
reactors derived from those in icebreakers, but with low-enriched fuel
(less than 20% U-235), will supply 70 MWe of power plus 586 GJ/hr (5.1
PJ/yr) of heat. They will be mounted on a 21,500 tonne, 144 m long, 30 m
wide barge. Refuelling interval is 3-4 years on site, and at the end of
a 12-year operating cycle the whole plant is returned to a shipyard
(Zvezdochka, near Sevmash has been mentioned) for a 2-year overhaul and
storage of used fuel, before being returned to service. Each reactor is
140-150 MWt and can deliver 38.5 MWe if no cogeneration is required.
The smaller ABV reactor units are under development
by OKBM Afrikantov, with a range of sizes from 38 MW thermal (ABV-6M )
down to 18 MWt (ABV-3), giving 4-18 MWe outputs. The PWR/VVER units are
compact, with integral steam generator. The whole unit of some 200
tonnes (ABV-6) would be factory-produced for ground or barge mounting. A
single ABV-6M would require a 3500 tonne barge, the ABV-3: 1600 tonne.
The core is similar to that of the KLT-40 except that enrichment is
16.5% and average burnup 95 GWd/t. Refuelling interval is about 8-10
years, and service life about 50 years. In mainly desalination mode the
ABV-6M is expected to produce 55,000 m3/day of potable water by reverse
osmosis. The company said at the end of 2009 that an ABV-R7D would cost
RUR 1.5 billion, but that Rosatom preferred the larger and proven KLT-40
design.
OKBM Afrikantov is developing a new compact icebreaker reactor – RITM-200
– to replace the current KLT 40 reactors. This is an integral 175 MWt,
55 MWe PWR with inherent safety features. (Some sources indicate only 40
MWe.) Two of these, as in the new LK-60 icebreakers, will give 60 MW
shaft power via twin turbine generators and three motors. At 65%
capacity factor fuel reloading is required after 7 years and major
overhaul period is 20 years. Fuel enrichment is almost 20% and the
service life 40 years.
For floating nuclear power plants a single RITM-200 could replace
twin KLT-40S and require a barge one-third the displacement, though
their use in pairs is envisaged*. The reactor mass of the RITM-200 is
only 2200 tonnes, compared with 3740 t for the KLT-40C.
* Twin RITM-200 units would use a 17,500 tonne barge 135 m long and 30 m wide.
Exports of combined power and desalination units is planned, with
China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Cape Verde and Argentina being
mentioned as potential buyers, though Russia would probably retain
ownership of the plant with operational responsibility, and simply sell
the output. Rosatom has formed a group of expert desalination advisors
as part of a strategy to sell its thermal desalination technologies. It
is targeting world regions where clean water is scarce as part of its
drive for leadership in in the global nuclear market.
VBER-300, VBER-200 to 600
OKBM Afrikantov's VBER-300 PWR is a 325 MWe gross,
295 MWe net, PWR unit developed from naval power plants and was
originally envisaged in pairs as a floating nuclear power plant.* As a
cogeneration plant it is rated at 200 MWe and 1900 GJ/hr for heat or
desalination. The reactor is designed for 60-year life and 90% capacity
factor. It was planned to develop it as a land-based unit with
Kazatomprom, with a view to exports, and the first unit was to be built
at Aktau in Kazakhstan. However, this agreement stalled, and OKBM has
been looking for a new partner to develop it. Two demonstration units
are proposed at Zheleznogorsk for the Mining & Chemical Combine
(MCC), costing some $2 billion. MCC preferred the VBER design to the
VK-300.
* Twin VBER-300 units would use a 49,000 tonne barge 170 m long and 62 m wide.
In October 2012 a VBER-500 design was announced by OKBM Afrikantov,
with design to be completed in about 2015 in collaboration with NIAEP.
In fact OKBM offers 200 to 600 MWe plants “based on the standard 100 MWe
module”. They are based on over 6000 reactor-years of experience with
naval reactors. The VBERs are not part of any federal program, but the
VBER-500 has explicit support from Rosenergoatom, with Kola replacement
in view, but the VBER-500 has explicit support from Rosenergoatom, with
Kola replacement in view, and the VBER-600 also perhaps as alternative
for Baltic plant’s 1200 MWe units.
VK-300 BWR
The VK-300 boiling water reactor is being developed
by the Research & Development Institute of Power Engineering
(NIKIET) for both power (250 MWe) and desalination (150 MWe plus 1675
GJ/hr). It has evolved from the Melekess VK-50 BWR at Dimitrovgrad, but
uses standard components wherever possible, eg the reactor vessel of the
VVER-1000. A feasibility study on building 4 cogeneration VK-300 units
at Archangelsk was favourable, each delivering 250 MWe power and 31.5
TJ/yr heat, but this has not proceeded.
RBMK/LWGR
A development of the RBMK light water graphite reactor was the
MKER-800, with much improved safety systems and containment, but this
too has been shelved. Like the RBMK itself, it was designed by VNIPIET
(All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering
Technology) at St Petersburg.
HTRs
In the 1970-80s OKBM undertook substantial research on high
temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTRs). In the 1990s it took a lead role
in the international GT-MHR (Gas Turbine-Modular
Helium Reactor) project based on a General Atomics (US) design.
Preliminary design was completed in 2001 and the prototype was to be
constructed at Seversk (Tomsk-7, Siberian Chemical Combine) by 2010,
with construction of the first four-module power plant (4x285 MWe) by
2015. Initially it was to be used to burn pure ex-weapons plutonium, and
replace production reactors which supplied electricity there to 2010.
In the longer-term perspective, HTRs were seen as important for
burning actinides, and later for hydrogen production. The coordinating
committee for this GT-MHR project continued meeting to at least 2010,
when it discussed plans to 2014, but there has been no further news of
this HTR project. OKBM is now in charge of Russian HTR collaboration
with China.
In 2015 Rosatom agreed with Indonesia’s BATAN for the pre-project
phase of construction of an experimental multi-functional HTR there. The
architect general will be Atomproekt, and NUKEM Technologies GmbH would
be implementing the project jointly with OKBM Afrikantov which is to
develop the design. An EPC contract for the project is expected in 2016.
International
From 2001 Russia has been a lead country in the IAEA Project on
Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). In 2006 Russia
joined the Generation-IV International Forum, for which NEA provides the
secretariat. Russia Russia is also a member of the NEA's Multinational
Design Evaluation Program which is increasingly important in
rationalising reactor design criteria.
Improving reactor performance through fuel development
A major recent emphasis has been the improvement in operation of
present reactors with better fuels and greater efficiency in their use,
closing much of the gap between Western and Russian performance. Fuel
developments include the use of burnable poisons – gadolinium and
erbium, as well as structural changes to the fuel assemblies.
With uranium-gadolinium fuel and structural changes, VVER-1000 fuel
has been pushed out to four-year endurance, and VVER-440 fuel even
longer. For VVER-1000, five years is envisaged from 2010, with
enrichment levels increasing nearly by one-third (from 3.77% to 4.87%)
in that time, average burn-up going up by 40% (to 57.7 GWd/t) and
operating costs dropping by 5%. With a 3 x 18 month operating cycle,
burn-up would be lower (51.3 GWd/t) but load factor could increase to
87%. Comparable improvements were envisaged for later-model VVER-440
units.
For RBMK reactors the most important development has been the
introduction of uranium-erbium fuel at all units, though structural
changes have helped. As enrichment and erbium content are increased (eg
from 2.4 or 2.6% to 2.8% average enrichment and 0.6% erbium), increased
burn-up is possible and the fuel can stay in the reactor six years. Also
from 2009 the enrichment is profiled along the fuel elements, with 3.2%
in the central section and 2.5% in the upper and lower parts. This
better utilises uranium resources and further extends fuel life in the
core.
For the BN-600 fast reactor, improved fuel means up to 560 days between refuelling.
Beyond these initiatives, the basic requirements for fuel have been
set as: fuel operational lifetime extended to 6 years, improved burn-up
of 70 GWd/tU, and improved fuel reliability. In addition, many nuclear
plants will need to be used in load-following mode, and fuel which
performs well under variable load conditions will be required.
All RBMK reactors now use recycled uranium from VVER-440 reactors and
some has also been used experimentally at Kalinin-2 and Kola-2 VVERs.
It is intended to extend this. A related project has been to utilise
surplus weapons-grade plutonium in MOX fuel for up to seven VVER-1000
reactors from 2008, for one fast reactor (Beloyarsk-3) from 2007, and
then Beloyarsk-4 from its start-up. In 2012 Rosenergoatom said it
planned to use MOX in new-generation VVER-TOI reactors, subject to
evaluation which should be complete in 2016.
Export of nuclear reactors
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for promoting Russian
nuclear technologies abroad, including building up a system of Rosatom
foreign representatives in Russian embassies. This is backed up by
provision of substantial competitive finance for nuclear construction in
client countries, as well as readiness to take equity or even
build-own-operate (BOO) as in Turkey.
Atomstroyexport (ASE) has had three reactor construction projects
abroad, all involving VVER-1000 units. First, it took over building a
reactor for Iran at the Bushehr power plant, a project commenced by
Siemens KWU but then aborted. That plant is now operating. Then it sold
two large new AES-91 power plants to China for Jiangsu Tianwan at
Lianyungang (both now operating) and two AES-92 units to India for
Kudankulam (under construction, start-up of first one in July 2013). It
is likely that ASE will build a second unit at Bushehr and agreements
have been signed for two more at Tianwan in China. The first two of
these are under construction. In 2007 a memorandum of understanding was
signed to build four VVER units at Kudankulam (reaffirmed since).
In April 2015 Rosatom said that it had contracts for 19 nuclear
plants in nine countries, including those under construction (5).
Export sales and prospects for Russian nuclear power plants (post-Soviet)
| Country | Plant | Type | Est. cost | Status, financing |
| Ukraine | Khmelnitski 2 & Rovno 4 | 2 x V-320 reactors, 1000 MWe | operating | |
| Iran | Bushehr 1 | V-446 reactor, 1000 MWe | operating | |
| China | Tianwan 1&2 | 2 x AES-91 | operating | |
| India | Kudankulam 1&2 | 2 x AES-92 | $3 billion | Built, unit 1 operation 2013, unit 2 pending |
| China | Tianwan 3&4 | 2 x AES-91 | $4 billion | Under construction from Dec 2012 |
| Belarus | Ostrovets 1&2 | 2 x AES-2006 | $10 billion | Loan organised for 90%, construction start 2013 |
| Construction: 5 | ||||
| India | Kudankulam 3&4 | 2 x AES-92 | $5.8 million | Confirmed, loan organised for 85%, construction start 2014? |
| Bangladesh | Rooppur 1&2 | 2 x AES-2006 | $4 billion | Confirmed, loan organised for 90%, construction start 2015 |
| Turkey | Akkuyu 1-4 | 4 x AES-2006 or VVER-TOI | $25 billion | Confirmed, BOO, construction start 2016 |
| Vietnam | Ninh Thuan 1, 1&2 | 2 x AES-2006 | $9 billion | Confirmed, loan organised for 85%, construction start 2017 or later |
| Finland | Hanhikivi 1 | 1 x AES-2006 | EUR 6 billion | Contracted, Rosatom 34% equity, also arranging loan for 75% of capital cost, construction start 2018? |
| Iran | Bushehr 2&3 | 2 x VVER | Construction contract Nov 2014, NIAEP-ASE, barter for oil or pay cash | |
| Armenia | Metsamor 3 | 1 x AES-92 | $5 billion | Contracted, loan for 50% |
| Contracted: 14 | ||||
| China | Tianwan 7&8 | 2 x AES-2006 | Planned | |
| Vietnam | Ninh Thuan 1, 3&4 | 2 x AES-2006 | Planned | |
| Hungary | Paks 5&6 | 2 x AES-2006 | EUR 12.5 billion | Planned, loan organised for 80% |
| Slovakia | Bohunice V3 | 1 x AES-2006 | Planned, possible 51% Rosatom equity | |
| Jordan | Al Amra | 2 x AES-92 | $10 billion | Planned, BOO, finance organised for 49.9% |
| Egypt | El Dabaa | 2 x AES-2006 | Planned, "credit financing by Russia" | |
| India | Kudankulam 5&6 | 2 x AES-92? | Planned | |
| Bulgaria | Belene/Kozloduy 7 | 2 x AES-92 | Cancelled, but may be revived | |
| Ukraine | Khmelnitski | completion of 2 x V-392 reactors | $4.9 million | Due to commence construction 2015, 85% financed by loan |
| South Africa | Thyspunt | up to 8 x AES-2006 | Broad agreement signed, no specifics, Russia offers finance, prefers BOO | |
| Nigeria | AES-2006? | Broad agreement signed, no specifics, Russia offers finance, BOO | ||
| Argentina | AES-2006 | Broad agreement signed, no specifics, Russia offers finance | ||
| Algeria | ? | ? | Agreement signed, no specifics | |
AES-91 & AES-92 have 1000 MWe class reactors, AES-2006 have 1200 MWe class reactors.
The above Table gives an overview of Rosatom’s export projects for
nuclear power plants. It is focused on 1000 and 1200 MWe-class VVER
reactors, the former being well-proven and the latter a very credible
design soon to be operating in Russia. In virtually all cases, the
technology is backed by very competitive finance. Rosatom expects its
order book to reach $100 billion by the end of 2014, up 25% in 12
months.
Russia's policy for building nuclear power plants in non-nuclear
weapons states is to deliver on a turnkey basis, including supply of all
fuel and repatriation of used fuel for the life of the plant. The fuel
is to be reprocessed in Russia and the separated wastes returned to the
client country eventually. Evidently India is being treated as a weapons
state, since Russia will supply all the enriched fuel for Kudankulam,
but India will reprocess it and keep the plutonium.
Rusatom Overseas expects two export Russian reactors constructed on a
build-own-operate (BOO) basis to be operating soon after 2020 and 24 by
2030. Only two of the projects listed below are BOO at this stage.
China: When China called for competitive bids for
four large third-generation reactors to be built at Sanmen and
Yangjiang, ASE unsuccessfully bid the AES-92 power plant for these.
However Tianwan 3&4 are now under construction, with further units
there planned.
India: Beyond Kudankulam 3&4, in 2009 plans to
build four more VVER units (probably AES-2006) were confirmed for
Haripur in West Bengal.
Belarus: Ostrovets NPP will be a 2400 MWe AES-2006
plant developed by SPb AEP (merged with VNIPIET to become Atomproekt)
based on AES-91 design. Atomstroyexport, now NIAEP-ASE, will the
principal construction contractor. Russia is lending up to $10 billion
for 25 years to finance 90% of the contract.
Bangladesh: The Rooppur nuclear power plant
originally to be two AES-92 reactors, but now evidently AES-2006 with
two V-392M reactors, is to be built by Atomstroyexport (now NIAEP-ASE)
for the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission. Russia is providing $500
million then $1.5 billion to cover 90% of the first unit’s construction.
Turkey: In 2010 Russian and Turkish heads of state
signed and then ratified an intergovernmental agreement for Rosatom to
build, own and operate the Akkuyu plant of four AES-2006 units as a US$
20 billion project. This will be its first foreign plant on that BOO
basis. Construction is due to start in 2016.
Vietnam: The Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant will
have two VVER-1000 reactors in its first stage built by NN
AEP-Atomstroyexport. Russia's Ministry of Finance will finance at least
85% of the $9 billion for this first plant. A second agreement for $500
million loan covers the establishment of a nuclear science and
technology centre.
Finland: In mid-2013 Fennovoima signed a project
development agreement for the Hanhikivi nuclear power plant with Rusatom
Overseas, which will also take at least a 34% share of the project.
Hungary: In January 2014 an agreement was signed for
two reactors, apparently AES-2006, with low-interest finance to cover
80% of the cost.
Jordan: In October 2013 ASE agreed to build two
AES-92 nuclear units, while Rusatom Overseas would be strategic partner
and operator of the plant, hence BOO basis. Russia will contribute at
least 49% of the project's $10 billion cost.
Bulgaria accepted Rosatom’s bid for two AES-92 units
for Belene in October 2006. ASE leads a consortium including Areva NP
and Bulgarian enterprises in the EUR 4.0 billion project, which now is
unlikely to proceed.
Ukraine: ASE is contracted to complete building
Khmelnitsky 3&4, where construction started in the 1980s and ceased
in 1990. A Russian loan will provide 85% of the finance.
Czech Republic: A Škoda JS/Atomstroyexport/OKB
Gidropress consortium is proposing to build two AES-2006/MIR-1200 units,
but a decision between this consortium and a Westinghouse-led one will
not be made until about mid-2015. Financing will be a significant
consideration.
Kazakhstan: Despite disagreements over 2009-10, ASE
is likely to build the first of a series of small reactors (probably
VBER-300) in Kazakhstan.
South Africa: A broad agreement with offer of
finance has been signed, but the country is open to other offers as
well, for 9600 MWe capacity required.
Considerable export potential for floating nuclear power plants
(FNPP), on a fully-serviced basis, has been identified. Indonesia is one
possible market.
Since 2006 Rosatom has actively pursued cooperation deals in South
Africa, Namibia, Chile and Morocco as well as with Egypt, Algeria, and
Kuwait.
In February 2008 ASE formed an alliance with TechnoPromExport (TPE),
an exporter of all other large-scale power generation types. This will
rationalize their international marketing. TPE boasts of having
completed 400 power projects in 50 countries around the world totalling
some 87 GWe.
For other fuel cycle exports see companion paper: Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Sources:
Prof V.Ivanov, WNA Symposium 2001, Prof A.Gagarinski and Mr A.Malyshev, WNA Symposium 2002.
Josephson, Paul R, 1999, Red Atom - Russia's nuclear power program from Stalin to today.
Minatom 2000, Strategy of Nuclear Power Development in Russia,
O. Saraev, paper at WNA mid-term meeting in Moscow, May 2003.
Rosenergoatom Bulletin 2002, esp. M.Rogov paper.
Perera, Judith 2003, Nuclear Power in the Former USSR, McCloskey, UK.
Kamenskikh, I, 2005, paper at WNA Symposium.
Kirienko, S. 2006, paper at World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, April and WNA Symposium, Sept.
Shchedrovitsky, P. 2007, paper at WNA Symposium, Sept.
Panov et al 2006, Floating Power Sources Based on Nuclear reactor Plants
Rosenergoatom website
Rosatom website
nuclear.ru
Gagarisnkiy, A.Yu., April 2012, Post-Fukushima Trends in Russian Nuclear Energy
Rosenergoatom, 2012, Russian Nuclear Power Plants 2011.
Antysheva, Tatiana, 2011, SVBR-100: New generation power plants for small and medium-sized power applications.
Prof V.Ivanov, WNA Symposium 2001, Prof A.Gagarinski and Mr A.Malyshev, WNA Symposium 2002.
Josephson, Paul R, 1999, Red Atom - Russia's nuclear power program from Stalin to today.
Minatom 2000, Strategy of Nuclear Power Development in Russia,
O. Saraev, paper at WNA mid-term meeting in Moscow, May 2003.
Rosenergoatom Bulletin 2002, esp. M.Rogov paper.
Perera, Judith 2003, Nuclear Power in the Former USSR, McCloskey, UK.
Kamenskikh, I, 2005, paper at WNA Symposium.
Kirienko, S. 2006, paper at World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, April and WNA Symposium, Sept.
Shchedrovitsky, P. 2007, paper at WNA Symposium, Sept.
Panov et al 2006, Floating Power Sources Based on Nuclear reactor Plants
Rosenergoatom website
Rosatom website
nuclear.ru
Gagarisnkiy, A.Yu., April 2012, Post-Fukushima Trends in Russian Nuclear Energy
Rosenergoatom, 2012, Russian Nuclear Power Plants 2011.
Antysheva, Tatiana, 2011, SVBR-100: New generation power plants for small and medium-sized power applications.
$$$ GENUINE LOAN WITH 3% INTEREST RATE APPLY $$$.
BalasHapusAre you in need of a Loan to pay off your debt and start a new life? You have come to the right place were you can get your loan at a very low interest rate. Interested people/company should please contact us via email for more details.
E-mail: shadiraaliuloancompany1@gmail.com