The SVBR-100 reactor.
The reason I think that this is interesting is because I am convinced that such relatively small modular reactors are the future of nuclear power, and the SLBR is the Russian entry into this field, along with the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor, the NuScale, and others. Furthermore, with Moscow's support the SLBR has better odds going for it than most of the other perspective modular designs.
The SVBR is currently envisioned in three sizes: 10MWe, 75MWe, and 100MWe. The first is intended for various portable and remote uses, incuding electricity and heat. (Ironically, I believe that the SVBR-10 meets Amory Lovins' definition of "micropower.") The 75MWe version was conceived as a way of reusing the equipment at aging Russian VVER-440 reactors. As described here, four SVBR-75 modules will replace the characteristic VVER steam generators within existing plant buildings and take advantage of existing turbomachinery. It's a very elegant idea, and it's easy to see why such a proposal would appeal to Rosatom. Finally, the SVBR-100 would be used in various stand-alone applications, including combined-heat-and-power and clustered in groups to create large power plants.
According to its designers, the SVBR will possess passive safety thanks to its "monobloc" design which incorporates the entire primary coolant loop in the reactor vessel, the physical and nuclear characteristics of the lead-bismuth coolant, and the placement of the reactor vessel in a pool of water which will serve as a passive emergency cooling system. The arguments for the SVBR's safety are, in my view, quite convincing, and it is clearly much safer than the current VVERs and the BN-series. I have my doubts, however, about whether the lead-bismuth coolant is quite friendly enough in operational practice to allow the general civilian application of these reactors. The Alpha submarine program, after all, suffered myriad difficulties with their lead-bismuth reactors and the expectation of widespread use of these reactors in the Soviet navy went unrealized. Gidropress believes that they have solved the attendant materials and design issues associated with lead-bismuth coolant, however. Only when the construction of a prototype SVBR will ascertain whether or not this confidence is justified. Furthermore, bismuth is rare, but geological exploration in Russia has already located enough of the element for hundreds of SVBR reactors.
Besides use repowering VVER-440s and building new electrical and heating plants within Russia, Rosatom also envisions the SVBR as a profitable export item. Anna Kudriavtseva, director of the department of research and scientific-technical policy at Atomenergoprom, reported at a conference last November that the SVBR could conceivably take 10-15% of the world market for small and medium-sized reactors, projected by the IAEA as 500-1000 units by 2040 and a potential value of $600 Billion. To this end the government is investing 16 Billion rubles in the project (about $500 million at current exchange rates), with a view to complete development work by 2017 and to have a pilot plant in operation by 2020. Although certainly less immediate than one might like, it appears that the SVBR will enter the commercial market at around the same time as the PBMR and other competing modular concepts.
Although the cost estimates I can find for the SVBR are not entirely reliable (they are, after all, made for an as-yet undemonstrated reator), they indicate that the SVBR is likely to be more economical than either the VVER or the ruinously expensive BN-series. This makes me wonder why Rosatom's expectations seem to belimited to sales of a few hundred units; barring unforseen events the SVBR would be its most attractive product both within Russia and on the export market by the early 2020s. By then there will probably be enormous demand for an economical, passive-safe nuclear reactor like the SVBR--a demand which Rosatom may be in a highly advantageous position to fill. I am heartened, however, by the fact that the NRC seems to be pondering the adoption of regulations encouraging the development of small, modular reactors. Hopefully the US won't abandon this critical arena to the Russians.
Good review -- thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'd not heard that the BN-600 or BN-800 were considered ruinously expensive. What did you base this on? The Chinese are looking at a modified design of the BN-800 themselves -- why would they do this if costs are such a factor?
Regarding sodium-cooled reactors, the S-PRISM design of GE-Hitachi is also modular (310 MWe), and designed to be deployed in multiple units to make up a plant size of up to 2.5 GW. The Toshiba 4S will be the same size as the smallest SVBR -- 10 MWe.
Cost estimates for Russian reactors have been pretty erratic over the past year. Proponents of the BN-series, who are quite numerous in the Russian nuclear establishment, argue that the cost per kWh for electricity from a BN-800 will be about the same as for a VVER. (Keep in mind that cost estimates for VVERs hit $4400/kilowatt a year ago before the ruble collapsed.) I have seen several Russian-language articles, however, that argue that the BN-800 in Beloyarsk is likely to come in late and over budget. This article from PRoAtom, for instance, argues that the BN-800 could come in at as much as $6 billion, or about $7500/kW. This would make the BN-800 highly uncompetitive on a cost basis in comparison to other Russian reactors. The designers of both the SVBR and the BREST argue that their designs will be substantially cheaper than the VVER, which seems plausible (although the lead-cooled BREST is too far from fruition to really evaluate this).
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese interest in the BN-800 makes sense, however, in light of the fact that it will not cost a substantial premium over western reactors while allowing China to gain experience with sodium-cooled reactors. In fact, cheaper labor and the benefit of Russian experience would probably make a Chinese BN-800 substantially cheaper than a Russian one. It's a good deal from their perspective. The BN-series, however, lacks most of the advantages of ALMR designs like the S-PRISM or the Toshiba 4S. From a safety and proliferation perspective, it's simply a much less advanced design. The SVBR looks like it could be a serious contender against next-generation reactors like the S-PRISM and PBMR. For these reasons, I think the SVBR is a much better product.
The name of the Atomenergoprom's director you mention should be spelled as "KudriaVtseva".
ReplyDeleteInteresting blog.
Fixed!
ReplyDeleteIt is moving forwards...
ReplyDeleteMOSCOW. Dec 25 (Interfax) - The Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) and En+ Group, which brings together the mining, energy and aluminum assets of Oleg Deripaska, have established a 50/50 joint venture, AKME-engineering, which will design and produce a prototype 100 MW lead-bismuth fast reactor (SVBR-100) with a view of commercializing the technology, the companies said in a press release.
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=138294