Georgy Toshinski is the Chief researcher, SSC RF IPPE's Director General adviser. In 1980 he defended his doctoral thesis on the theme "Reactor physics studies for ship nuclear power installations with liquid metal coolant, lead-bismuth". He took part in tests of liquid metal cooled reactors for Soviet submarines and in analysis and generalization of their operation experience. He is awarded the order of "Labor Red Flag" and the Order of Znak Pocheta (the Badge of Honor), as well as medals. He was awarded the title of Honorary Scientist of the Russian Federation; he is the member of Rosatom's Scientific and Technical Council.
Technology born in Russia and recognized abroad
Our readers often complain that there is very little published information about SVBR-75/100 reactor.
I agree with that there is little information regarding SVBR, especially in the Russian press. At the same time the work on this project is presented sufficiently fully abroad - one or two times a year! - at many conferences, including IAEA's conferences.
Research work on heavy liquid metal coolants had been started in 1998, after the first conference for heavy liquid metal coolants for nuclear technologies was held. 34 people from 11 countries participated in this conference. After this conference the activities for heavy liquid metals had been launched abroad. The second conference devoted to 100-years anniversary of A.I. Leipunsky was held in 2003. At last, in the next year we are planning to hold the third conference devoted to 50-years anniversary from the start-up of the world's first reactor installation with lead-bismuth coolant- facility 27/VT in Obninsk (IPPE). Really this facility was designed for atomic submarines, but nevertheless, it gave an impulse to all other activities.
If to tell about foreign activities, it should be noted that today a number of papers presented at international conferences by foreign investigators exceeds about 10 times a number of Russian participants.
Who has an interest in lead-bismuth studies?
If to tell about countries, there are a lot of countries. Japan, where there is a special group for studying lead-bismuth coolant. There is an international group headed by South Korea's specialists. There is also European group investigating not only reactors, but also accelerators.
Many laboratories of USA, China and other states are engaging in lead-bismuth studies. It is enough to say that today a reference book for heavy liquid metals has been published abroad with volume of 700 pages.
Is there an analog of Russian reactor SVBR-75/100 abroad?
There is no analog yet. But if to tell about studies, we have already gone behind our competitors in some study lines.
So there is a well-equipped laboratory in Germany (Karlsrue), where new ways of steel protection against corrosion were found, progress in temperatures level was achieved etc. In Russia up to now the analogous studies hadn't been practically financed, and reactor designers - IPPE, OKB "Hydropress" and Moscow AEP had to pay them from their own funds. However, now the situation has somewhat changed.
How do you think why interest in lead-bismuth arose abroad?
There are two reasons why this interest arose. The first reason is resulting from natural properties of this coolant. If you use liquid-metal alloy of lead-bismuth, you don't need high pressure in the first circuit. It cardinally simplifies installation and improves its safety. Since there is no a pressure - there is no a risk of explosion. But it is rather a property of all liquid metals. But the feature of lead-bismuth in comparison with sodium is its chemical inertness to water and air during the contact, which can arise under accident. This property also simplifies and cheapens the installation. We can use two circuits scheme for lead-bismuth instead of three circuits one adopted for sodium-cooled reactors.
Fast reactors have been always considered and continue to be considered as the future of nuclear power, because one can involve such resource as 238U into the process of power generation only with using fast reactors. Up to now mainly BN-type reactors with sodium coolant were considered as fast reactors. This technology was mastered and used in industrial scale. But due to their own natural properties, BN-type reactors seemed more expensive than VVER-type reactors, although, frankly speaking, this difference is decreased in the last years.When we together with Moscow AEP carry out the first studies for SVBR reactor, we showed, of course on paper, that economic characteristics of SVBR are better than VVER reactor. But it is the main motive of nuclear power development! As you know, there are alternatives to NPPs, and if nuclear power seems to be more expansive than organic fuel power, the market will reject it.
Cheaper than VVER
Telling about comparison of SVBR and VVER, do you mean the known history of proposal to construct SVBR in Novovoronezh?
Initial work carried out in complex volume by Moscow "Atomenergoproject" was aimed at renovation of old unit of VVER-type reactor. In particular, renovation of VVER-400 reactor was discussed.
Only in Russia or abroad?
Novovoronezh NPP was certainly discussed. But in principle, this solution may be use everywhere. It had been shown that renovation with using SVBR would be 2 times cheaper in comparison with construction of new units with VVER reactor.
Everybody understood well that economic gain of using SVBR during renovation is due to keeping infrastructure of the site - machine room, turbines, generators, cooling system. Capital construction hasn't been required from us, we would simply change reactor.
Of course, many specialists doubted that large power unit with lead-bismuth reactor would be economically attractive. Then, using financial means received in foreign contracts, a conceptual project had been carried out by the same group of participants - IPPE, OKB "Hydropress" and Moscow AEP. 1600 MW(el.) power unit was described in eight volumes of design documentation prepared by us. This power was set by Rosenergoatom suggested us to show competitiveness of SVBR reactor in comparison with VVER-1500 reactor.
Our results showed that specific outlay for lead-bismuth reactor is significantly lower than for VVER-1500 reactor. But later all specialists recognized that justification of economic characteristics of light water reactor with power of 1500 MW (e) is higher, because there is its close prototype - VVER-1000 reactor with mastered technologies. And we had to introduce17% margin for outlay for lead-bismuth reactor. On the other hand, everything in SVBR reactor, except reactor department, was very well studied, and if to refer this margin to the reactor, it will be at the level of 60%. Nine organizations inspected the project and it had been shown that the margin suggested is enough to cover all possible surprises.
Thus, Russia begins to fall behind foreign competitors in lead-bismuth R&D work …
I would say in research work, but not in R&D.
Well, we fall behind in research work. But reactor project exists only in Russia
Only in Russia! This sufficiently advanced reactor project is only in our country.
Lead-bismuth isn't an obstacle to light water reactors
Could you characterize the status of our SVBR-75/100 project? Despite poor financing, we continued to work. So we could go on the level of detail design to the moment of consideration of the status of work at Rosatom's Scientific Technical Council (STC-1) meeting on June 15, 2006. Now detail design is under development. Is the first site for SVBR reactor supposed in Obninsk? The site for construction of the first SVBR reactor was not indicated in STC' resolution. Later it had been recognized that the readiness of lead-bismuth reactor project was not sufficient for commercialization. And I fully agree with this remark. The equipment is new; technical solutions are new, although they were justified in many aspects for nuclear submarine. Therefore direct demonstration is necessary, i.e. a creation of pilot SVBR reactor. And this work is written in the Federal Target Program for nuclear power development. Since pilot SVBR reactor should be constructed at certain site, the solution was prepared - which has been approved now, - that main (parent) industrial power unit with lead -bismuth fast reactor will be constructed at IPPE'site in Obninsk. And it is quite justified choice. When will it happen? The dates aren't defined. They will depend on financing. So far we have financing only for this year, but there is only application for the next years. It is important to note that SVBR reactor technology is modular. Electric power of one unit is 100 MW (el.). Testing one module, one can collect as from the bricks, power units with power of 200, 300, 400MW(el.) etc. What power limit is supposed? There is no limit here. The larger number of modules in unit will be and the higher its power will be, the lower specific outlay will be, that will influence favorably on economic parameters of SVBR reactor. Limitations will arise only when receiving electricity, for example, when choosing turbine. Today it has been recognized that the most expedient niche for application of SVBR reactor is NPP with small and medium power, including regional plants, desalinated installations, floating NPPs. In particular, it was written in STC-1's resolution. But creation and successful operation of pilot SVBR reactor is the essential condition for advanced application of lead bismuth reactor. How can you characterize the situation with equipment for SVBR? The feature of SVBR technology is that since coolant doesn't require high pressure, stainless steel vessel of reactor can be comparably thin-walled. It means that one can't bother "Iszhora"plant? Exactly. Serial production of vessels for SVBR modules can be realized at many plants of country, not crossing the road to VVER-reactors and the program "AES-2006". A very important advantage of lead-bismuth is that its engineering base is wide. Here the vessels are thin-walled, steam generators are miniature, pumps are less complicated in manufacture than for VVER-reactors. We have already signed the Protocols and network schedules with Podolsk Engineering Plant named after Ordjonikidze and some other plants for manufacturing equipment for SVBR. I don't see any problems with equipment. Are there any estimations, how much financial means will be required to construct pilot unit, or it is too early to say about it? There are just estimations. The matter is that we are saying about pilot unit, where R&D is required to carry out. Today we estimate total outlay of about 315 million $. It is 3150 $ per 1kW of installed capacity that is not so bad for installation of small power. Transportable lead-bismuth You have said that SVBR could be used in future as reactors for floating NPPs? SVBR reactor was developed as reactor for multipurpose usage at once. It can use various kind of fuel. The task faced us was to minimize expenditures for fuel infrastructure, i.e. to use that fuel, which industry produces today. Today oxide uranium fuel is produced; it means that SVBR reactor will also operate with UO2 fuel. Of course, fast reactors consume more natural uranium in comparison with thermal ones, but the number of these reactors is still low and it doesn't influence on total balance of uranium. Nevertheless, SVBR reactor can operate with MOX-fuel, weapons-grade plutonium, reactor plutonium, nitride fuel. Telling about SVBR reactor usage, it should be said that the most various variants of SVBR reactor usage were considered. For example, already mentioned renovation of units, for which VVER-reactor lifetime was ended and further its prolongation is dangerous. Beginning from 2015-2018 the number of shut down units in Russia will begin to increase like avalanche. Units will be shut down with the pace of almost 1 GW/year, i. e with the same pace as they were put into operation at that time. Dark days will come for nuclear power from the viewpoint of investments. Now we require financial means only for development, but after 2018 we'll have to spend additional money for replacing decommissioned capacities. The use of SVBR reactor for renovation can decrease essentially our future expenditures, but we'll be able to tell about it seriously only after putting into operation of pilot lead-bismuth reactor. Thus, beginning from the end of the second decade, we could continue to construct VVER reactors for development of our nuclear fleet and simultaneously not loading our engineering capacities, to produce SVBR reactor for replacing old VVER reactors, couldn't we? Yes, just so. And I'd like to emphasize again - we will be able to carry out renovation on the basis of SVBR reactors with less expenditures. The purpose function of our nuclear branch is evident - we should receive more production per unit of investment. And renovation on the basis of SVBR can help us in it. Besides renovation, we are also developing a concept of transportable reactor units for desalination of seawater and/or generation of electricity abroad. Take your attention - reactor units! We develop the philosophy, which receives more and more recognition. Floating NPP, as you know, bears all equipment. Not only reactor installation, but turbines, generators and many others. Let's think - why we need to transport all this equipment, if it could be built on the shore? SVBR reactor has a large lifetime - from 7 to 10 years, and larger lifetime with using nitride fuel. We do unit transportable and it becomes like a battery. One can transport the unit in the states -Clients and rent it, with connecting unit to infrastructure built by buyers of electricity or desalinated water. This concept looks more attractive in comparison with the idea of floating NPP. For example, it will be possible to involve local personnel. Expenditures of producers of reactor unit will be compensated at the expense of rent, and calculations show that it is quite real and interesting. It will be required to draw wires from floating NPP to the shore, but transportable reactor unit will have to transmit heated steam to the Customer on the land… Just a moment! Really we will have to draw wires from the floating NPP, because it has its generators, transformers and etc. There was this experience in Soviet Union - these are floating gas turbine plants "Arctic lights". But there were a lot of problem with their operation: for example, with strong change of water level and other natural conditions. It is more reliable, if the plant is on the solid foundation, but not on the water. Do you want to say that reactor unit SVBR arrives to the Customer, discharges on the shore and is connected to the local infrastructure there already? Exactly! It is transported by the sea, put on the platform by crane, traveled by road or by railway to the site of installation, then loaded into a pit by crane, connected to the pipes and put into operation. And in 7-10 years the pit will become empty, spent core will come back to Russia, and another "battery" will be installed at this site. On which enrichment the lifetime of 7 years and more is reached? The average enrichment in SVBR-75/100 reactor is 16%. It is below IAEA's boundary dividing low and high enrichment uranium (20%). By the way, I'd like to remind about once more interesting property of lead-bismuth coolant, which will be useful for future transportable reactor units. When temperature drops below 125°C, lead-bismuth eutectic solidifies. It is very useful for transportation, since it creates an additional barrier of safety. Reactor will be delivered to renters with solid coolant that will increase safety of transportation. But do problems arise during heating up of coolant after reactor delivery to the site? You know that this problem was very urgent for ship installations. Before we were afraid to freeze coolant. But then we could develop such regulations, which allow to fulfill freeze/defreeze of coolant up to 20 times without damaging fuel subassemblies. These regulations obtained experimental justification at large facilities in OKB "Hydropress". Let's get back to economics. Could you compare SVBR and VVER reactors from the viewpoint of kW*hour cost? Perhaps, you remember that generally fast reactors, in particular SVBR, have higher fuel burn-up than thermal ones. The core of fast reactor itself is more expensive, but if we are saying about the cost of 1 kW*hour electricity generated, calculations show that it is cheaper for SVBR. Here I use the above mentioned comparison calculations of SVBR with 16 modules (power of 1600 MW) and VVER-1500. Thank you for interview for Atominfo.ru. SOURCE: AtomInfo.Ru DATE: December 03, 2007 Topics: Russia