<DrumBeat: May 17, 2009 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: May 18, 2009>

173 comments on Russia's Unique SVBR-100 Nuclear Reactor

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

phil harris on May 17, 2009 - 11:51am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Sounds a lot more useful fast-breeder type than the abandoned old ones (fearsome beasts that they were) especially without the concomitant 'plutonium economy'.
But I have not got the hang of the scale-up.
Perhaps "1000 SVBR-100 reactors by 2040": does that mean 1000GWe, or some much lower number by 2040 as some kind of hoped for maximum? Even at its highest does that mean the energy equivalent of 12.5 mbpd oil? Electricity is different stuff from oil for sure, but at first glance this does not seem enough to ensure continued world economic growth. No answer for BAU one would guess?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
chris_babb on May 17, 2009 - 6:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Aging conventional pressurized water reactors (PWRs) in Russia and the United States are approaching the ends of their life cycles. The Russians have a plan to repower their PWR installations using the modular SVBR-100's. In that application, no new turbines or generators would be needed. Consequently, repowering would save substantial amounts of money. However, since all nuclear reactors eventually suffer from embrittlement, due to radiation damage, those retirement dates cannot be postponed indefinitely. (To do so would invite catastrophe.)
Currently, experts in the U.S. predict that the current nuclear power share of U.S. electric generation will drop from its current 20% to about 14% by 2020, because of nuclear plant retirements.(See page 134 in Steam Plant Operation, Eight Edition) As I understand it, the U.S. has no serious plans to deal with those retirements. What is the U.S. going to do, build coal fired plants. Not likely. Maybe we should all stock up on candles.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Styno on May 18, 2009 - 1:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Maybe you (in general I mean) should go around your house with an energy monitor and see if there is anything that can be unplugged when not used e.g. by using a kill-switch, or be replaced by something more energy efficient. Maybe you can insulate your houses better. Maybe get some solar panels using surplus money, as it is no use trying to get more efficiency out of it buying stocks. Be creative in trying to lower your energy demand.

A few simple things can cut back your energy usage by as much as 50%, perhaps more. If you can rally enough Americans to do so then the 6% loss in electricity generation because of nuclear plant retirements wouldn't be a problem at all. It would kill a few coal fired plants as well.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

173 comments on Russia's Unique SVBR-100 Nuclear Reactor

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version