Military Review

Problems with the Mondju Experimental Reactor

54



Problems with the Mondzue experimental reactor question the plan for reproducing nuclear fuel.

The Japanese energy policy is facing serious difficulties in the 2016 year, namely the problems with the experimental reactor. The government is trying to develop an industrial fast-neutron reactor for the reproduction of nuclear fuel, in order to increase the level of self-sufficiency of the fifth energy economy in the world - now Japan’s self-sufficiency is 6 percent.

Poor resources Japan imports from Canada and other countries all uranium to generate electricity at nuclear power plants (one of its main sources), but seeks to produce fuel on its own using a fast neutron reactor capable of producing more plutonium than it consumes. Plutonium can be used for a conventional reactor and for a fast neutron reactor by mixing it with uranium. Now Japan is commissioning foreign companies to process its spent fuel into uranium-plutonium mixed oxide, planning to start recycling at home in the future. However, the design of a fast neutron reactor has recently run into problems, and the reactor is in danger of being shut down.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission warned the government in November that it was necessary to guarantee the safety of the troubled Mondzueh reactor, including the possibility of closing it if a new operator was not found within 6 months.

Mondju is an experimental fast neutron reactor. The government has spent more than 1 trillion yen (8,27 billion dollars) on this project. But persistent security problems have left the reactor idle most of the time since it was launched in the 1994 year.

Problems with the Mondju Experimental ReactorThe Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission has criticized the current operator, the Japanese nuclear energy agency, for not making serious progress in ensuring safety, even after a barrage of safety problems led to a long-term stop. Hiroshi Haze, the science minister responsible for the project, has compiled a list of those who can continue the project of studying a fast neutron reactor. However, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission is deeply concerned about the fate of the project, since most industry experts believe that it will be difficult to find a replacement for the reactor operator.

The creation of another government agency is obviously not a solution after repeated attempts by the government to exploit the Mondju reactor have failed. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency, founded by the government at 2005 through the merger of two national nuclear research institutes, is already the third operator of the Mondju reactor. According to experts, it would be too risky to allow a private company to be responsible for an experimental reactor that produces electricity in a more complicated way than a light water nuclear reactor.
Private energy company does not have sufficient knowledge and experience, especially for a fast neutron reactor, told reporters Makoto Yagi, chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, in response to the question of who can replace the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency.

The Japanese Institute of National Foundations (a group of activists supporting nuclear energy) criticized the decision of the commission to regulate atomic energy, as it could lead to the closure of the Mondju reactor and a dramatic revision of the national nuclear policy. Shinuchi Tanaka, head of the atomic energy regulation commission, stated several times that his organization wanted the minister of science, who is responsible for the project, to ensure the safety of the reactor and does not intend to force the ministry of science to stop its operation. It is up to the ministry to decide whether to close it, Tanaka said at a press conference.

Hideyuki Ban, co-director of the civil information center, an independent, anti-nuclear community group, said that neither energy companies nor government structures have the skills to manage the project safely.
The Monju Reactor is a long list of problems, starting with a large fire caused by sodium leakage in 1995, which led to the suspension of the project until May 2010. In August of the same year, the device for loading the fuel was accidentally dropped, and it is still in non-working condition.

The closure of the reactor due to safety concerns will mean Japan’s abandonment of the development of industrial fast neutron reactors. However, the termination of the project may lead to another serious problem: the accumulation of plutonium reserves, in the absence of a fast neutron reactor operating on a uranium-plutonium mixed oxide. Such a decision could reinforce international fears about the military use of these stocks.

The representative of China, Fu Kong, in a speech to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, said that there are enough fissile materials in Japan to manufacture more than a thousand warheads. The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan planned to use such a mixed fuel at 15 conventional reactors by the end of 2016. The plan, however, was suspended from 2011 onwards, since the Fukushima accident stopped most reactors.

The abandonment of a fast-neutron reactor derails the Japanese waste fuel reprocessing plan. And anxiety is constantly growing: what to do with the reserves of this fuel?
Author:
Photos used:
http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniken/ECE1019590/hvorfor-dog-ikke-atomkraft/
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. evil partisan
    evil partisan 13 February 2016 08: 11
    0
    The faster they destroy their nuclear power plants, the faster they will crawl to us for gas yes. And the pipes themselves will lead along the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. To Yamal ...
  2. sa-ag
    sa-ag 13 February 2016 08: 17
    12
    Quote: Angry Guerrilla
    The faster they destroy their nuclear power plants, the faster they will crawl to us for gas

    gas, gas, that you, as a government, look at the whole world through a pipe, you can see a lot of things
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 13 February 2016 08: 49
      +4
      Quote: sa-ag
      you as a government look at the whole world through a pipe

      Through a gas pipe, I personally look not only at the rest of the world, but also at my salary. yes So that - request I can’t help myself ... recourse
  3. carabiner sks
    carabiner sks 13 February 2016 08: 32
    +3
    Japanese cannot reprocess the resulting plutonium. Where then to attach it? That's right, either they will create their own nuclear weapons, or the Americans will hand over fissile materials to their hands.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 13 February 2016 11: 05
      +5
      Quote: carabiner sks
      Japanese cannot reprocess the resulting plutonium. Where then to attach it? That's right, either they will create their own nuclear weapons, or the Americans will hand over fissile materials to their hands.

      Keyword "bye" ... Japan's nuclear industry is already under US control. In Japan, as well as in the FRG, very substantial stocks of plutonium have been accumulated, and these countries, if they so wished, could create nuclear weapons very quickly. In this regard, in accordance with an international agreement, the spent fuel was exported to France, where plutonium was extracted from it. Currently, France has accumulated enough plutonium to create 10000 nuclear charges.
    2. varov14
      varov14 13 February 2016 17: 58
      0
      There is a third way - they will sell it to us, we will "dilute" and share it both with "partners", well, those who are always and everywhere, and with the Japanese themselves and will get lost.
  4. Valery 1966
    Valery 1966 13 February 2016 08: 48
    +3
    For reactors like this, the future. When the oil runs out, gas and coal will only have nuclear fuel. In a nuclear reaction using the isotope of Uranus 238, Plutonium 239 is released. This same Plutonium 239 is capable of providing humanity with energy for several thousand years in advance. Uranium reserves enough for this
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 14 February 2016 02: 07
      -1
      Quote: Valery 1966
      This same Plutonium 239 is capable of providing humanity with energy for several thousand years in advance. Uranium reserves enough for this

      Thank you for your clarification, but in the light of current events and the Fukushima accident in Japan, it is better to be left without such reactors, otherwise the problem of nuclear waste from the Far East region may arise after Japan's attempts to resolve territorial disputes with neighbors using nuclear weapons. Enough of the wars unleashed by Japan after 1867 In fact, after the bourgeois revolution of 1863-1868, a series of wars began in Asia, unleashed by Japan. The abolition of Article 9 of the Constitution on the non-use of the Self-Defense Forces outside of Japan, on which he insists Japan’s government, the accumulation of fissile materials, territorial claims against neighboring states, are these not signs of Japan’s resurgent aggressive state? Don't you think that the United States holds everything in its hands? Japanese zaibatsu are very strong in the United States and this comes from the same refugees of 1867. They especially intensified in the 60-70 years of the twentieth century.
  5. ImPerts
    ImPerts 13 February 2016 08: 59
    +4
    I have a suggestion for the Japanese. You need to squeeze the rolls to a crunch, put your pride deeper, take your feet in your hands and ask the Russians, promising them to remove the American bases and giving Hokkaido as part of the payment.
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 13 February 2016 16: 07
      +1
      Hokaido will not give up, because there is nowhere to live! It would be better for the Japanese to agree to the proposal of Russia to create Japanese autonomy in the Far East, the Japanese will immediately have many problems, the main of which are: there is nowhere to live and the risk of being washed off into the ocean.
      1. Kadavercianin
        Kadavercianin 14 February 2016 00: 22
        0
        There is only one problem, the Japanese do not want to live where it is cold, they want to live where it is warm and preferably most of the year, like the Chinese, by the way, so most likely there will be little chance of creating such a district because of the small number of volunteers.

        Although, as you know, maybe, if you conduct a good advertising campaign or the conditions inside the country change, then anything can be.
      2. ImPerts
        ImPerts 14 February 2016 12: 42
        +1
        Hokkaido is almost uninhabited.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. varov14
      varov14 13 February 2016 18: 02
      +1
      Give you that six hundred parts did not cut Hokkaido, give it to you, but it’s stupid to share technologies, just the final product.
  6. Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 13 February 2016 09: 06
    -3
    There are a lot of deserts on Earth, where 300 sunny days a year, sand - a source of silicon, the only question is cheaper technology. Humanity will easily be able to provide itself with solar electricity for any needs in any volumes. Nuclear reactors, whatever they say, are dangerous.
    Take at least Fukushima. The facts are hushed up but it seems that it is not inferior to Chernobyl.
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 13 February 2016 09: 24
    +1
    These are Japanese problems and let their head hurt. The main thing is that these problems do not affect the safety of nuclear facilities. The Far East is nearby and the wind often blows in our direction.
  8. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 February 2016 12: 42
    -3
    The "invisible hand" in all its glory. We need to privatize Rosatom as well. A strong private owner will immediately put things in order, increase efficiency to unprecedented heights. What do Chubais and Gef think about this, is it time already?
    1. varov14
      varov14 13 February 2016 18: 09
      0
      And if some cunning, bypassed engineer "isotope" builds in the master's chair - goodbye acquired.
  9. Mestny
    Mestny 13 February 2016 14: 11
    +2
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    There are a lot of deserts on Earth, where 300 sunny days a year, sand - a source of silicon, the only question is cheaper technology. Humanity will easily be able to provide itself with solar electricity for any needs in any volumes. Nuclear reactors, whatever they say, are dangerous.

    All "green" technologies are not all that safe. For example, how will a closed panel (which also still need to be produced from the same silicon, having spent a huge amount of energy and various by-materials, often rare and extremely expensive) on the global climate, will affect the global climate? now. Or wind generators in really massive quantities - will they not affect the distribution of air masses?
    And then all these methods of generating electricity, given the entire chain from source to consumer, have low efficiency, and are expensive.
    So the only most effective method so far is the nuclear power plant. And all the ecologists' enthusiastic chatter about electric vehicles is complete nonsense, taking into account the low efficiency of the entire chain "energy generator - end user" and the cost of production. So here, too, only the internal combustion engine in its pure form or in combination with a generator.
    1. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 13 February 2016 17: 08
      +5
      I agree completely. Current wind generators and solar panels are unfortunately not the most efficient way to generate energy.
      Solar panels, in addition to high cost, also have a limited, and not too long service life, when their efficiency decreases, they also need to be cleaned of dust and rotated, which makes them very limited cost-effective.
      Wind generators, let’s take the most effective ones - horizontal: they make noise (this can be omitted if set in sparsely populated regions, in addition, it seems that they have already managed to reduce noise quite well), they have enough moving parts and rather complicated mechanics, which reduces reliability, limited range of operating speeds winds are created largely from polymer materials, which also makes them more expensive.
      In addition, these methods of generating electricity have a number of drawbacks: due to some relative irregularity and instability of the generation of electricity, there is a need for its accumulation, but there is still no sufficiently effective and relatively inexpensive method of accumulating it, the difficulty in redistributing electricity, due to too a large number of generation elements greatly reduces the efficiency of the power system, which leads to a strong decrease in the efficiency of electricity transmission. These are just system flaws.

      In addition, these methods of energy production are not so environmentally friendly, since a sufficiently large amount of energy needs to be spent on their production and utilization, in addition, the materials and technological processes of their production are also not the most environmentally friendly.

      Yes, wind generators and solar panels need to be developed, but we will be realistic at the moment their niche is a partial energy supply of private housing and not very good energy supply to large infrastructure facilities or industry they do not normally pull out, but it's a pity.
      1. zennon
        zennon 13 February 2016 21: 31
        +3
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        Solar panels, in addition to high cost, are also limited, and their service life is not too long; when heated, their efficiency decreases

        And their production rarely requires land elements, which are very difficult and expensive to recover. For this, a large amount of water and energy is needed. Moreover, the environment also suffers!
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        Wind generators, let's take the most effective - horizontal: noise

        And that too. In the Netherlands, the community lost a lawsuit against noisy generators. The court ruled that people must endure for "green" generating facilities! In addition, the number of insects in the areas where they are installed is sharply reduced. Their wings are not adapted to the turbulent currents created turbine blades. As a result, the birds that feed on them disappear. In addition, when the wind force drops by 2 times, the amount of energy decreases by 8 times! Unstable energy is difficult to use. As a result, "ecological" generation is 10-12 times more expensive and is subsidized for the expense of using nuclear power plants! And more-power DO NOT RECOMMEND press to disseminate this information. However, we have already heard this in relation to the "free press of the west" ...
      2. opus
        opus 15 February 2016 22: 27
        -2
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        Solar panels, in addition to high cost, also have a limited, and not too long service life, p

        The 1st generation has served 30-40 years. Now it is being processed (Siemens, BASF, etc.), a good irony of rare-earth and precious metals ..
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        when heated, their efficiency decreases

        all rightbut not very much



        the temperature coefficient of open circuit voltage (Voc Temperature Coefficient) is much higher than the temperature coefficient of short circuit current (Isc Temperature Coefficient), and therefore with increasing temperature, the voltage drop is greater than increase current strength
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        in addition, they still need to be cleaned of dust and rotated, h

        NPP, CHP also need to be serviced and it costs several times more than to "wash" the dust. I will not say anything about the disposal of "waste"
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        Wind generators, let's take the most effective - horizontal: noise (

        Do you think the steam generators are not noisy?
        Is there a lot of spurious noise here (compared to other ICs)?


        Quote: Kadavercianin
        since a sufficiently large amount of energy must be spent on their production and disposal, in addition, the materials and technological processes of their production are also not the most environmentally friendly.

        take a nuclear power plant or thermal power plant, in general (induced dose, slags, thermal pollution of the environment, etc.)
        Quote: Kadavercianin
        their niche is a partial energy supply of private housing and not very full energy supply to large infrastructure facilities or industry they do not normally pull out yet, but it's a pity.

        ?
        Europe's largest hydroelectric power station - Volzhskaya hydroelectric power station - has capacity 2600 MW, and the famous American Hoover Dam 2060 MW .... California wind station Alta Wind Energy Center 1600mW

        Denmark- wind power covers already 40% of all energy needs of the country. The Danes' energy plans are simply staggering: to produce 50% of all energy from the wind by 2020, and 85% by 2035. In 2050, Denmark must cover its electricity needs with wind. That is 100% of all the needs of the country.
        hi
        1. adept666
          adept666 16 February 2016 08: 38
          +2
          good ironing ...
          Heh and how much energy (and money) do you need to extract back?
          NPPs, TPPs must also be serviced
          Dust can be washed and easier (although solar generation on solar cells with an efficiency of ~ 10% -15%, and even in places starting at degrees 30-40 north / south of the equator is not at all cost-effective), but it’s 200-300 1,5 MW to maintain x windmills can be argued. smile
          steam generators are not noisy?
          They make noise, hellishly make noise, but in the turbine compartment, and outside it is quiet and smooth.
          Is there a lot of spurious noise here (compared to other ICs)?
          A lot, if this does not interfere with a person (especially in transport), then it interferes with other living creatures of which there are many times more on our planet and depends on them, how we will continue to live on this planet. The area of ​​nuclear power plants / thermal power plants is ~ 2 sq km, the area of ​​a comparable wind farm is 70-100 sq km
          take a nuclear power plant or thermal power plant, in general (induced dose, slags, thermal pollution of the environment, etc.)
          Yes, everything is so, but it is mostly local (therefore, their systems according to SNiP). In general, thermal pollution can be neutralized if you approach this creatively (install heat exchangers), while windmills change the wind rose and this can not be changed. Induced dose? At most facilities, even near VON reactors, normal or with a slight excess, behind the object’s fence, the background is normal (People generally go without special guards next to finished fuel rods), the electrolysis plant is much more harmful than nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste? - a closed cycle (we’ve got close to it already). Slags, ash - next to a coal-fired power plant, who prevents the construction of an enrichment plant (how many useful elements can be chosen, half of the periodic table)? Cheap energy is nearby, water is nearby (since the power plant is standing).
          California Windmill Alta Wind Energy Center 1600MW
          Now, while ~ 1,4 GW (and this is the maximum power, not average) and this requires> 500 wind turbines, a huge area and a place rich in winds with a wind rose without a sharp change in wind direction during the day (there are hundreds of such places on the planet, and needs millions ...). The operation of the windmill is limited by the strength of the wind of the lower and upper threshold (starting-blocking), so windmills cannot provide constant even generation without a receiver - a huge array of batteries (if there are none, then such a power plant is not suitable for industry), for the same reason there are problems connecting to the general network. In order not to make an expensive receiver, they are cunning, giving out 70-75% of the maximum power to the network (equalize)
          Denmark - wind energy already covers 40% of all energy needs of the country.
          How Denmark is loved to cite as an example laughing And what is not Iceland? They almost never burn anything there, but consume more electricity per capita than in Europe. Not one large wind farm (although there are prospects in this direction is no worse than in Denmark). Everything is very simple nature gives other species more compact and even less expensive. Denmark is a good position from the point of view of VEG, a small population, a small industrial production. Let's turn our view of Japan better?
          1. opus
            opus 16 February 2016 12: 58
            -3
            Quote: adept666
            Heh and how much energy (and money) do you need to extract back?

            2 (!) orders of magnitude less than the extraction of raw materials and processing.
            They have everything in chocolate, as well as with PET (plastic bottles), batteries, batteries, mobile phones, computers, solar panels and garbage.
            In Germany, the smallest companies in the processing of electronic trash are in chocolate.
            They don’t give us equipment (I asked, and it won’t help: there is no centralized collection and utilization collection (upon purchase)), they say bring trash to us (not allowed: transboundary movement of waste)
            Quote: adept666
            They make noise, hellishly make noise, but in the turbine compartment, and outside it is quiet and smooth.

            yes, yes .. "smooth".
            Noise pollution of nuclear power plants / thermal power plants. Silencers-just type in google.
            Noise level of 100 dB is achieved by operating steam turbines of nuclear power plants. Even nuclear power plant cooling towers, in which the process of cooling the steam, creates noise in the region of 80-90 dB.
            Quote: adept666
            it interferes with other living creatures of which there are many times more on our planet and depends on them, how we will continue to live on this planet. NPP / TPP area ~ 2 sq km

            Yes, yes ... quarries for mining uranium ore, mining, reclamation? enrichment plants? factories for the production of special concrete, special radiation-resistant structural steels? transport? warehouses? burial grounds? cooling lakes?
            Quote: adept666
            therefore and their systems according to SNiP)

            type wind farms are not built according to SNiP? Yes, and wind farms, although they are in the optimal zone of winds, usually on the outskirts of waste land: fields, mountains, an entrance and infrastructure for the staff (schools, kindergartens, housing, transport, roads, shops) -NO NEEDED.
            Quote: adept666
            Who is stopping the construction of an enrichment plant (so many useful elements can be chosen, half of the periodic table)? De

            come on. Visit. Who's stopping? our solid waste is not processed (and about radioactive slag (yes, yes, slag after the CHP radioactive))
            Quote: adept666
            vast area and place rich in winds with a rose of winds without a sharp change in wind direction

            It doesn’t care. Germany's wind farm, the issue has been resolved, all wind farms are united into a single network with other power plants.
            Quote: adept666
            and what is not Iceland?

            fool
            There would be a conversation about geothermal (and not about WIND POWER) would lead.
            Quote: adept666
            . Not one large wind farm (although there are prospects in this direction is no worse than in Denmark). AT

            1. Why, when under your feet + 200grS at a pressure of 10 atmospheres? (the same in the states where the geothermal exhaust is) there is practically no wind farm
            2. Downwind - Denmark is "more profitable" than Ireland
            1. adept666
              adept666 17 February 2016 05: 02
              +1
              2 (!) orders of magnitude less than the extraction of raw materials and processing.
              This is far from the case (I mean specifically FEP and rare-earth metals, there is a complex energy-intensive technology).
              yes, yes .. "smooth" Silencers - just type in google.
              What was your Google? I was in the engine rooms (and boiler rooms) of 4 power plants with units from 250 to 500 MW.
              Even the cooling towers of nuclear power plants, in which the process of cooling the steam, creates noise in the region of 80-90 dB.
              Well, it sounds like a small waterfall (which actually is) 80-90 - it’s inside, and behind the wall it is much smaller.
              Yes, yes ... quarries for mining uranium ore, mining, reclamation?
              As well as quarries for the extraction of coal, diamonds and in general any ore even iron. How will the windmills (or FEP) save the situation? (Do they also somehow need to be done and the main thing is to do something).
              transport? warehouses? burial grounds? cooling lakes?
              What transport and warehouses have you brought here? (Do you need to build them for other purposes? For example, thermal power plants and nuclear power plants use the general logistics infrastructure of the state, and not special) And as for thermal pollution, I already said - it is solved by recovery units.
              Yes, and wind farms, although they are in the optimal zone of winds, are usually on the outskirts of waste land: fields, mountains, an entrance and infrastructure for the staff (schools, kindergartens, housing, transport,
              [/ comment-show]
            2. adept666
              adept666 17 February 2016 15: 13
              +1
              Strangely cut off half of the comment, so I’ll duplicate it.
              It doesn’t care. Germany's wind farm, the issue has been resolved, all wind farms are united into a single network with other power plants.
              I already wrote about the trade-offs that you have to make in order to connect to the network in general (there is still one point, any storms on the network - blocking windmills). In addition, we, for example (RF / Kazakhstan), will have even greater efficiency in the cold season.
              Yes, and wind farms, although they are in the optimal zone of winds, are usually on the outskirts of waste land: fields, mountains, an entrance and infrastructure for the staff (schools, kindergartens, housing, transport,
              They also need to be constantly serviced, especially the more powerful ones. Starting a windmill with a capacity of more than 1 MW is a whole procedure (replacing technical fluids, checking generators, I&C components, applying the starting voltage (such a windmill cannot move itself)) and this happens all the time. Taking into account the area> 70 sq km and the number of units> 300, the costs are not small.
              There would be a conversation about geothermal (and not about WIND POWER) would lead.
              You do not understand what I'm talking about. I mean, it makes no sense to cite as a role model a country that is well located from the point of view of VEG and at the same time that does not need to light and heat 120 million households, several thousand industrial enterprises of metallurgy, engineering, etc. VEG is suitable for Denmark such as Japan and we are not, so what should it be brought up as a standard for imitation?
              come on.Visit. Who's stopping? our solid waste is not processed (and about radioactive slag (yes, yes, the slag after the CHP is radioactive))
              Can build? If so, then the engineer's salary gets in the way. Yes, we do not process solid waste (or rather, something is processed, but not as systematically as, say, in Germany), but it means there is something to strive for. As for the "ringing" from the ash ..., the coal, as it were, before the pulverized combustion, mined by the overburden method, rings, and the urvan ore rings, but it is processed, what prevents it from doing with the ash? There, just all the components for the radio industry can be said in an "enriched" form.
              1. opus
                opus 19 February 2016 14: 26
                -1
                Quote: adept666
                In addition to this, for example, (RF / Kazakhstan), the efficiency will be even stronger

                The winds?
                Well, call on us in St. Petersburg: storm warnings of the Ministry of Emergencies once a week, or even more often. On the 17th floor do not go out to smoke on the roof.
                I don’t know about the whole of Kazakhstan, but 7 months of stay in that place near Tyura-Tam tell me otherwise
                Quote: adept666
                procedure (replacement of technical fluids, check of generators, components of KIOiU

                Yes Yes Yes.
                ALL THIS IS NOT NECESSARY TO DO IN CHP, NPP, HPP?
                Quote: adept666
                You do not understand what I'm talking about.

                I got it
                Quote: adept666
                and at the same time, which does not need to light and warm up 120 million households, several thousand industrial metallurgical enterprises,

                We look at the specific electricity consumption and everything is resting.
                Quote: adept666
                what prevents it from doing with ash?

                money.
                And they "call" DIFFERENTLY
                1. adept666
                  adept666 19 February 2016 16: 59
                  +1
                  Well, drop in to us in St. Petersburg:
                  I visited you a couple of times, a beautiful city, but alas, it doesn’t climate me.
                  EMERCOM storm warnings once a week /// I don’t know about the whole of Kazakhstan, but 7 months of stay in that place near Tyura-Tam tell me otherwise
                  That's the whole problem, the wind needs a "correct" one I already wrote to you about it, preferably with a constant direction and average (approximately equal) force. Such in canyons, on the coasts (not at all). A 1,5-3 megawatt windmill cannot be turned with a weather vane like a 2-kilowatt one. The energy costs for turning a few tones are not small, but now imagine that the wind changes its strength and direction almost every hour, so you can go to the minus. Constant storms are a big minus, because you will have to constantly block the wind turbine, otherwise it will go into consumption and collapse from clashing. After blocking it must be started again. You will be worn out so 200 wind turbines start up - stop)))
                  Yes, yes, yes. ALL THIS DOESN'T BE DONE AT CHP, NPP, HPP?
                  It is necessary that the start-up of the power unit from the beginning to reaching the operating parameters sometimes takes up to several days, especially if the turbine blades are crookedly assembled and it is possible to carry it for a couple of weeks, but routine maintenance is carried out once a year, and if your wind turbine in conditions of "wrong" wind, put each you will have to run several times a week.
                  We look at the specific electricity consumption and everything is resting.
                  Specific consumption by whom?
                  money.
                  there is money, there are no laws obliging to bring recycling to 70-80% of business owners, and it’s silly to hope for their patriotism (you brought Germany correctly, if you put something in the wrong tank, you’ll get a fine)
                  And they "call" DIFFERENTLY
                  In different ways, the ash contains more isotopes and a higher concentration, but it is still far from always "enriched" uranium, many coals practically do not "ring".
                  1. opus
                    opus 19 February 2016 17: 13
                    -1
                    Quote: adept666
                    but I do not climate alas.

                    and then!
                    diseases of the musculoskeletal system in 56% of the population
                    Quote: adept666
                    preferably with a constant direction

                    they are rotary.
                    + VOSU

                    Quote: adept666
                    Permanent storms are a big minus, because you have to constantly block the windmill, otherwise it will go to consumption and collapse from clipping

                    will not go away, this is not

                    rotary blades
                    ===================
                    indisputably

                    But this does not threaten us
                    Quote: adept666
                    Specific consumption by whom?

                    residents of countries

                    Quote: adept666
                    In different ways, there are more isotopes in the ash.

                    and the amount of ash that?
                    Estimated at the end of the 1990s, at the ash dumps of coal-fired power plants in the country more than 1,5 billion tons of ash and slag, and the total area of ​​land occupied by ash dumps wastens of thousands of hectares. According to rough estimates, at Russian thermal power plants annually about 30 million tons of ash and slag are formed.
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 20 February 2016 15: 24
                      +1
                      diseases of the musculoskeletal system in 56% of the population
                      I didn’t know, is it because of the increased humidity or what? what
                      they are rotary.
                      I know this and I wrote: A 1,5-3-megawatt wind turbine cannot be turned with a weather vane as a 2-kilowatt wind turbine. Energy costs for turning a few tones are not small, There is a wind direction sensor and the generator turns the electric motor (on small windmills, a simple beam vane). The generator is heavy enough so the engine is powerful and in order for the efficiency to be at a level, it is necessary to rotate it less, if your windmill only chases the wind, it will only gobble 10-15 percent of its load for positioning, plus losses for synchronizing the speed, if, like yours "evil winds", then also losses from icing and an increase in the viscosity of technical fluids.
                      rotary blades
                      Yes, and the one that swept over also saw rotary feathering blades, it is just clear that the wind is spinning in a whirlwind, therefore it did not save, and this is still a small windmill at a large pendulum moment much more serious.
                      and the amount of ash that?
                      Is there a problem, am I against it? I say that we need laws that force the processing of this waste, there the floor of the periodic table is almost enriched, but you need to develop a withdrawal technology, look for money, raise specialists, etc. The problem is not waste, the problem is that no one wants to deal with it and 100500 wind turbines (even if it were possible and profitable everywhere) is not an alternative. In the same Germany, the government subsidizes FEP and WEC generation, reducing taxes, giving loans at low interest rates, buys the burden, etc. Those. this is honestly not cost-effective from an economic point of view.
                      About 30 million tons of ash and slag are generated annually at Russian thermal power plants.
                      I think the figure is more ...
  10. zennon
    zennon 13 February 2016 15: 15
    +8
    What to do? A strange question. Go to Moscow and conclude an agreement with us. The 4th unit of the Beloyarsk NPP has already been launched! With sodium coolant. The use of uranium-plutonium fuel in the BN-800 reactor makes it possible not only to use the reserves of energy plutonium, but also to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, as well as to “burn” long-lived actinide isotopes from irradiated fuel from thermal reactors. There is nothing to burst through an open door. Come to Russia.
    1. Kadavercianin
      Kadavercianin 13 February 2016 17: 13
      +1
      It would be nice, these are additional orders, and expanded advertising, and access to new markets, and the development of nuclear energy, both in Russia and in the world, but only whether the Japanese will go as far as I know the American influence on them very much , in addition, Japanese nuclear energy is considered American nuclear energy, they may simply not be allowed. And they themselves might think they say what for and spoil our relations and get fuel that may not suit us, and the service is different.
    2. Olezhek
      13 February 2016 17: 52
      +4
      To go to Moscow and conclude an agreement with us. The 4 unit of the Beloyarsk NPP has already been launched!


      Communicated by the way with yuppami on this topic on their site
      By the way, they in 90 bought documents on fast neutron reactors from us.
      But the "stone flower" did not work out
      And they are not ready to work with us on high-current
      1. Kadavercianin
        Kadavercianin 13 February 2016 18: 25
        +2
        Quote: Olezhek

        By the way, they in 90 bought documents on fast neutron reactors from us.
        But the "stone flower" did not work out
        And they are not ready to work with us on high-current


        Even so, hmm ... interesting, it means we’re glad to buy technology, but I don’t want to cooperate.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 14 February 2016 04: 45
          +1
          Quote: Kadavercianin

          Even so, hmm ... interesting, it means we’re glad to buy technology, but I don’t want to cooperate.

          In this case, Japanese nuclear waste is put under our control, because Russia is returning spent nuclear fuel, as a result of which Japanese dreams of nuclear weapons remain dreams. Plutonium from TVELs leaves for Russia.
          1. Kadavercianin
            Kadavercianin 17 February 2016 12: 19
            0
            Quote: Amurets

            In this case, Japanese nuclear waste is put under our control, because Russia is returning spent nuclear fuel, as a result of which Japanese dreams of nuclear weapons remain dreams. Plutonium from TVELs leaves for Russia.


            Yes, but if their project does not take place, and the chances of this are not zero, then the problem of spent fuel will remain, which is not good.

            While still thinking about nuclear weapons, Japan is in the wake of US foreign policy (or the SGA, whichever is more convenient) and is with them in a military alliance against the PRC, DPRK and Russia, but they still have no nuclear weapons or nuclear technology transferred, so who knows in their country most likely there are enough forces that can slow down the subject of the Japanese nuclear program.
  11. 23424636
    23424636 13 February 2016 15: 44
    +3
    The Americans took away a piece of the mind from the Japanese regarding friendship with Russia, and the sooner they restore it, the fewer idiots who will give plutonium to concession will be. This technology is well developed and exploited by Russia.
  12. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 February 2016 15: 55
    +6
    And in Russia, a fast neutron reactor has already been launched with a fuel output MORE than you load. Not by weight, of course, but by composition and energy yield. The French did not cope, the Japanese, apparently, did the same. The mattress did not set such a task. And Rosatom walked, walked, and came. And the next reactor will be BN 1200. And, judging by the publications, it will be possible to build a closed cycle for one BN 1200 four VVR 1500. People are working. They solve problems, build reactors all over the world. Successfully pushing Westinghouse wherever they can. Is this also an export of hydrocarbons?
    And the Japanese - what about the Japanese? Waited on Fukushima hydrogen explosions, did nothing, there were no instructions! They will not go to Russia. Hegemon does not order. But the initiative in the East is not accepted.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 13 February 2016 16: 18
      -5
      As if they didn’t arrange Chernobyl again. There, everything is not so simple in fast as in thermal ones. So the thermal did not save. Dumb design mistakes. But how to stew fast on sodium, for example? How to prevent freezing? And who runs the nuclear industry? Kindersurprise, an engineer in maritime transport, what does he know about the reactor at all ... Another kind of fantasy crystallograph, some other random people, adventurers ...
      1. Kadavercianin
        Kadavercianin 13 February 2016 17: 28
        +3
        And what about not saved thermal?
        Chernobyl, if I’m not mistaken, there the originals first turned off all possible types of automatic defenses, and then decided to put the experience, so we get along.
        Fukushima, it’s also fun here, firstly, the American project of such stations was not without problems, well, and secondly, it’s necessary to clarify what measures were taken to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants in the area of ​​increased seismic activity and not far from the sea the coast.
        Well, and at the expense of other problems on quick ones, you won’t succeed in extinguishing sodium as such, you will have to fill in the reagent, but there is an assumption that in case of significant leaks there will already be nothing to extinguish, so first of all the control system became the most interesting thing the state of the reactor, the tightness of the walls, and others. The French at this stage just faltered.
        To prevent freezing, one already needs to ask nuclear scientists or chemists, since the reactor will still have to be stopped periodically, probably for scheduled work there, loading and unloading of fuel, so such events were most likely foreseen and what to do about it.
        1. Falcon5555
          Falcon5555 13 February 2016 18: 52
          -3
          Chernobyl, like Fukushima, as you rightly pointed out, is one and the same nuclear industry, which sometimes turns out to be frivolous, which is usually discovered later, after an accident. So now the Japanese are not in vain blowing water, I think. Chernobyl is like a car that they decided to test and exceeded speed, turning off the stabilization system (according to plan), but the main protection system of which is the brake, turned out to be connected as if with a lighter in the gas tank. There is a lot about this on the Internet now. Fukushima incorrectly placed emergency diesel engines. By the way, another problem is that when plutonium is removed from spent fuel, there will be a lot of radioactive waste, the entire periodic table. For example, radioactive gases, including noble ones. As far as I understand, they can only be released into the atmosphere. If the fuel elements are simply kept in pools and disposed of, then all the waste is disposed of. So there is no need for hatred.
          1. Kadavercianin
            Kadavercianin 13 February 2016 21: 51
            +1
            Quote: Falcon5555
            By the way, another problem is that when plutonium is removed from spent fuel, there will be a lot of radioactive waste, the entire periodic table. For example, radioactive gases, including noble ones. As far as I understand, they can only be released into the atmosphere. If the fuel elements are simply kept in pools and disposed of, then all the waste is disposed of. So there is no need for hatred.


            Not quite so, the withdrawal takes place almost in an airtight room without the participation of people and the whole unit, that is, all TVs are closed, then they are delivered in a sealed container to storage / processing sites, they do not have time to recycle much waste, so that everything that is there is just kept until the queue comes. When the turn comes, the fuel rods are disassembled in a sealed chamber, and the removed fuel is processed, the reprocessing includes the release of uranium, plutonium and elements from this block, which, relatively speaking, can be "afterburned" in the reactor, it goes to new fuel, and the waste is glazed, everything this takes place in a sealed, maximally isolated environment, the glazed mass is poured into metal containers in which it is stored.
            The joke of the glazing is that practically everything that didn’t get into the new fuel, including gases, gets there, and the peculiarity of the glass is that it is chemically neutral and does not lend itself well to weathering.
            By the way, the level of radiation from the glazed mass is not so great, the most dangerous radioactive components go into the fuel, only radioactive components with long half-lives remain in it, and which you can "burn", or isotopes that emit in the beta and gamma range.
            By the way, for reference, alpha particles are helium ions (helium atoms), so that uranium, as it were, produces a noble gas by itself.
            If I made a mistake somewhere, a big request from specialists who are more correct in the topic is me.
            1. Falcon5555
              Falcon5555 13 February 2016 22: 41
              0
              Well, if that's the case. But I personally do not understand how gas can be glazed, all the more noble, which does not bind to anything. He opened the fuel rod, albeit in a sealed volume - and the gas that was in the free volume of the fuel rod came out. Let it remain in that larger hermetic volume where the entire fuel rod is located. Not all this volume then glaze. And if it’s all - you pour glass there - so it will displace the gas. He began to chemicalize something with uranium tablets - from there it smelled even more from the inside. Well, etc. In a word, I do not really believe that they all glaze. Well, if so, but somehow I can not believe it.
              1. Kadavercianin
                Kadavercianin 14 February 2016 00: 17
                +3
                Quote: Falcon5555
                But I personally do not understand how gas can be glazed, all the more noble, which does not bind to anything. He opened the fuel rod, albeit in a sealed volume - and the gas that was in the free volume of the fuel rod came out. Let it remain in that larger hermetic volume where the entire fuel rod is located. Not all this volume then glaze. And if it’s all - you pour glass there - so it will displace the gas. He began to chemicalize something with uranium tablets - from there it smelled even more from the inside. Well, etc. In a word, I do not really believe that they all glaze. Well, if so, but somehow I can not believe it.


                Glazing is not really pouring glass, where a glass melt is created that mixes with the melt of the waste itself, I won’t tell you exactly, but as in the iron and steel industry, it seems like it is not being done besides it is still under pressure, as if some then part of the gas does not bind, then it will be quite a bit, and if ventilation works normally, then there will be no place for this gas to accumulate, and in the atmosphere their emission will be even less than insignificant.
                Noble gases do not chemically bind this way, but you can try to bind them physically not due to chemical bonds, but due to high temperatures and pressure, so to speak to get a conditionally speaking mixture of water and oil (for example, using ultrasound), and then freeze the oil will remain in the water and if there was noticeably more oil, then even the temperature will be high enough to melt the oil, but not high enough to melt the ice, the oil will remain in a piece of ice.
                Well, the truth is nothing absolutely perfect will not be.
        2. Mountain shooter
          Mountain shooter 13 February 2016 18: 54
          0
          There is a liquid lead reactor option. This is so, by the way. And on protection against freezing - there TENY stand. Great power.
          They support the metal in a liquid state.
          1. Grishka cat
            Grishka cat 13 February 2016 20: 45
            -1
            And from what tena are written? From a diesel?
  13. Jrvin
    Jrvin 13 February 2016 16: 39
    0
    What, what, and in the nuclear industry we are ahead of the rest ...
  14. atraorenburg
    atraorenburg 13 February 2016 19: 11
    -1
    Well, they will arrange a new Chernobyl. Better let them buy gas from us. and im well
  15. Georgey
    Georgey 13 February 2016 20: 24
    -1
    Israel is a kinder surprise from the Chubais Guard, and he is also a master at writing reports on phenomenal successes. One of his unannounced achievements is the almost complete shutdown of the AECC. And much more we will learn over time ...
  16. Rust
    Rust 13 February 2016 22: 07
    +1
    Quote: ImPerts
    I have a suggestion for the Japanese. You need to squeeze the rolls to a crunch, put your pride deeper, take your feet in your hands and ask the Russians, promising them to remove the American bases and giving Hokkaido as part of the payment.

    The best option. I fully support.
  17. zemnoyd
    zemnoyd 15 February 2016 16: 17
    0
    and we already have BREST (with a "cheap" lead carrier) on the way