Νew Technologies and Innovation Development in Russia

George1 wrote:Symantec and Skolkovo pen partnership agreement Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - http://rbth.co.uk/news/2014/07/19/symantec_and_skolkovo_pen_partnership_agreement_38353.html)

kvs wrote:http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Design-completed-for-prototype-fast-reactor-0209147.html



Russia has completed the design for the BRES-300 lead cooled fast neutron breeder reactor.    Russia is the world leader in
such designs and has had lead-bismuth cooled reactors on its nuclear submarines.   But don't bother looking this up on wiki where some
experimental design from Belgium that has not been built yet gets most of the attention.

The advantage of using lead as a coolant is that it boils 1740 Celsius.   In other words, it is physically impossible to have a meltdown since the
passive cooling will never let the fuel assembly get anywhere near this temperature.   Sodium coolant is OK, but it has a much lower boiling point.

http://www.crines.titech.ac.jp/projects/gif/2_1_4.pdf

Lead is transparent to neutrons so it is the ideal coolant for a fast breeder reactor.

Owing to the low neutron moderation by heavy lead, it is possible
to expand the fuel lattice without affecting the reactor neutronics,
to increase the coolant flow section in fuel assemblies, and to
raise the level of power removed by natural lead circulation. The
lead circuit itself giving off its heat continuously to naturally
circulating air and thereby to the atmosphere, will never be
overheated by residual heat.

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Is it true, spent rods and depleted uranium can be put in front of a reactor and become useful again? Maybe this will have it's uses if the START treaty falls apart.

That is the whole idea behind a breeder reactor.  Spent fuel is reprocessed and placed together with fresh fuel rods.   Over a period of time it is enriched by neutron absorption.   For example "useless" Uranium 238 becomes Plutonium 239.   This really is the modern equivalent of alchemy.   But we are not going to be breeding gold from lead anytime soon

As noted in the PDF I linked, breeder reactors with closed fuel cycles get 100 times more energy out of a kilogram of Uranium ore than conventional single cycle reactors.   There is also much less and much shorter lived waste from breeders.   Breeder reactors can burn the so-called "waste" piling up in the obsolete reactors deployed around the world today.  

Breeder reactors give Russia nuclear energy independence due to its lack of large Uranium reserves

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Is it true, spent rods and depleted uranium can be put in front of a reactor and become useful again? Maybe this will have it's uses if the START treaty falls apart.

That is the whole idea behind a breeder reactor.  Spent fuel is reprocessed and placed together with fresh fuel rods.   Over a period of time it is enriched by neutron absorption.   For example "useless" Uranium 238 becomes Plutonium 239.   This really is the modern equivalent of alchemy.   But we are not going to be breeding gold from lead anytime soon

As noted in the PDF I linked, breeder reactors with closed fuel cycles get 100 times more energy out of a kilogram of Uranium ore than conventional single cycle reactors.   There is also much less and much shorter lived waste from breeders.   Breeder reactors can burn the so-called "waste" piling up in the obsolete reactors deployed around the world today.  

Breeder reactors give Russia nuclear energy independence due to its lack of large Uranium reserves

It's interesting that the new breeder reactors Russia is developing has many of the same advantages as LFTR reactors have (using spent rods as fuel, exponentially better fuel efficiency, exponentially smaller amounts of waste created), now it makes a lot of sense that the Russians chose this path over LFTR, as this path should still allow the capability to produce warheads if deemed necessary (for better or worse that is something that LFTR's are not capable of).

BTW you mentioned about problems with Russia's uranium reserves, I believe I read somewhere that Russia still maintains an enriched uranium stockpile to produce 40,000 warheads rapidly. Whether that claim is accurate Russia is also a significant member of the Eurasian Customs Union, and so is Kazakhstan (also a CSTO member) the world leading uranium producing country (which produces nearly twice the amount of uranium ore as the second largest producer, Canada), who's President Nazarbayev was the guy who first proposed the Customs Union, so no worries of uranium shortage either way.

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Is it true, spent rods and depleted uranium can be put in front of a reactor and become useful again? Maybe this will have it's uses if the START treaty falls apart.

That is the whole idea behind a breeder reactor.  Spent fuel is reprocessed and placed together with fresh fuel rods.   Over a period of time it is enriched by neutron absorption.   For example "useless" Uranium 238 becomes Plutonium 239.   This really is the modern equivalent of alchemy.   But we are not going to be breeding gold from lead anytime soon

As noted in the PDF I linked, breeder reactors with closed fuel cycles get 100 times more energy out of a kilogram of Uranium ore than conventional single cycle reactors.   There is also much less and much shorter lived waste from breeders.   Breeder reactors can burn the so-called "waste" piling up in the obsolete reactors deployed around the world today.  

Breeder reactors give Russia nuclear energy independence due to its lack of large Uranium reserves

It's interesting that the new breeder reactors Russia is developing has many of the same advantages as LFTR reactors have (using spent rods as fuel, exponentially better fuel efficiency, exponentially smaller amounts of waste created), now it makes a lot of sense that the Russians chose this path over LFTR, as this path should still allow the capability to produce warheads if deemed necessary (for better or worse that is something that LFTR's are not capable of).

BTW you mentioned about problems with Russia's uranium reserves, I believe I read somewhere that Russia still maintains an enriched uranium stockpile to produce 40,000 warheads rapidly. Whether that claim is accurate Russia is also a significant member of the Eurasian Customs Union, and so is Kazakhstan (also a CSTO member) the world leading uranium producing country (which produces nearly twice the amount of uranium ore as the second largest producer, Canada), who's President Nazarbayev was the guy who first proposed the Customs Union, so no worries of uranium shortage either way.

All of them? LFTR's still have big advantages over the lead-cooled designs... In fact, lead-cooling was hugely researched in the 50's by the West, but it was deemed to be of too much trouble to be of any real worth... It is an improvement over modern-day designs, but LFTR's? I don't see why Russia would care for that ability, as they already have the capability to produce thermonuclear devices by the truck load... - That is a somewhat well-known conspiracy theory here in MURICA', that we didn't go for LFTR's because they couldn't refine nuclear material into weapons-grade "yellow cake". If this is true or not I don't know... (LFTR's should be much safer and more efficient, never mind cleaner than lead-cooled designs. There are many other advantages as well.)

higurashihougi wrote:I am sorry if any missed any of the previous posts in this thread. But I would like to know about Russia's achievement in the field of renewable energy, aside from nuclear reactor.

And the field of environment, carbon output, and similar things, too.

After all, oil and uranium do not have unlimited amount, and I don't think the thaw of Arctic ice is good for any country with coast, including Russia.