Thorium in nuclear power: pros, cons, pitfalls. What are the pros and cons of nuclear power plants

Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation

Chair " Economic Geography and Regional Economics”

COURSE WORK

“Prospects for the development of nuclear energy in Russia”

Excellent!

Student group NP1_2 Erovichenkov A.S.

Scientific supervisor Assoc. Vinokurov A.A.

Moscow - 1997

Plan.

Introduction The situation in the energy complex of Russia

Limited energy sources

The most important factors in the development of nuclear energy

Pros and cons of nuclear energy

Nuclear fuel and energy base of Russia

New power units

Conclusion Prospects for the development of nuclear energy in Russia

Prerequisites for the development of nuclear energy

Russia was, is and will be one of the world's leading energy powers. And this is not only because the country's subsoil contains 12% of the world's coal reserves, 13% of oil and 36% of the world's natural gas reserves, which are enough to fully meet their own needs and for export to neighboring countries. Russia has become one of the world's leading energy powers, primarily due to the creation of a unique production, scientific, technical and personnel potential of the fuel and energy complex (FEC).#1

But the economic crisis of recent years has significantly affected this complex. The production of primary energy resources in 1993 was 82% of the 1990 level and continued to fall. The reduction in fuel and energy consumption, due to the general economic downturn, temporarily eased the task of providing the country with energy, although in a number of regions it was necessary to limit energy consumption by force. The lack of necessary investments made it impossible in the 1990s to compensate for the natural decommissioning of production capacities and to renew fixed assets, the depreciation of which in the fuel and energy sector ranges from 30-80%. In accordance with safety standards, up to half of the nuclear power plants require reconstruction.#9

It should be noted that in 1981-1985. the average annual input of capacities in the electric power industry was 6 million kW per year, and in 1995 - only 0.3 million kW. In 1995, Russia produced 860 billion kWh, and in 1996, due to a decrease in demand and wear and tear of equipment installed at power plants, 840 billion kWh.

Electricity generation at Russian power plants (billion kWh)

Table 1 #3

The share of Russia in the volume of world electricity production was 8.2% in 1990, and in 1995 it decreased to 7.6%.

In 1993, Russia ranked 13th in the world in terms of electricity production per capita (6297 kWh).

In 1991-1996 Electricity consumption in Russia decreased by more than 20%, including 1% in 1996. In 1997, for the first time in the 1990s, an increase in electricity production is expected.

In the early 1990s, Russia's installed energy capacity exceeded 7% of the world's. In 1995, the installed capacity of the electric power industry in Russia was 215.3 million kW, including the share of thermal power plants - 70%, hydroelectric power plants - 20% and nuclear power plants - 10%.

In 1992-1995 66 million kW of generating capacities were commissioned. Currently, 15 million kW of TPP equipment have exhausted their resource. In 2000 there will be 35 million kW of such capacities and in 2005 - 55 million kW. By 2005, HPP units with a capacity of 21 million kW (50% of the capacity of Russian HPPs) will have reached their operating life limit. At nuclear power plants in 2001-2005. 6 power units with a total capacity of 3.8 million kW will be decommissioned.

According to experts, at present, 40% of Russian power plants use obsolete equipment. If measures are not taken to upgrade generating equipment, then the dynamics of its aging by 2010 will look like this: (thousand million kW)

Table 2 #3

Under these conditions, to meet the projected demand for electricity and capacity, a significant reconstruction of existing, and then the construction of new power plants will be required. But what type of energy is the most economical, safe and environmentally friendly? What industry should be funded to develop? Today, when choosing a source of electricity, one cannot fail to note the relevance of such a factor as the limited energy sources.

Limited energy sources.

Current energy consumption rates are about 0.5 Q per year, but they are growing exponentially. Thus, in the first quarter of the next millennium, energy consumption is projected to be 1 Q per year. Therefore, even if we take into account that the growth rate of electricity consumption will decrease somewhat due to the improvement of energy-saving technologies, the reserves of energy raw materials will last for a maximum of 100 years.

However, the situation is aggravated by the discrepancy between the structure of stocks and consumption of organic raw materials. Thus, 80% of fossil fuel reserves are coal and lignites, and only 20% are oil and gas, while 8/10 of modern energy consumption is oil and gas. Consequently, the time frame is further narrowed.

An alternative to fossil fuels and a renewable energy source is hydropower. However, even here the energy source is quite limited. This is due to the fact that large rivers, as a rule, are far from industrial centers or their capacities are almost completely used. Thus, hydropower, which currently provides about 10% of the world's energy production, will not be able to significantly increase this figure.

Huge potential solar energy(about 10 Q on average per day) could theoretically meet all the world's energy needs. But if we attribute this energy to one square meter of the Earth's surface, then the average thermal power will be no more than 200 W / m, or about 20 W / m of electrical power with an efficiency of conversion into electricity of 10%. This, obviously, limits the possibilities of solar energy when creating high-capacity power plants (for a plant with a capacity of 1 million kW, the area of ​​​​solar converters should be about 100 km2). Fundamental difficulties also arise when analyzing the possibilities of creating high-power generators using wind energy, tides in the ocean, geothermal energy, biogas, vegetable fuel, etc. All this leads to the conclusion that the possibilities of the considered so-called “reproducible” and relatively environmentally friendly energy resources are limited, at least in the relatively near future. Although the effect of their use in solving individual problems of energy supply can already be quite impressive, the total share of renewable resources in the next 40-50 years will not exceed 15-20%.

Of course, there is optimism about the possibilities fusion energy and other efficient ways of obtaining energy, intensively studied by science, but with the current scale of energy production, the practical development of these possible sources will take several decades due to high capital intensity (up to 30% of all capital costs in industry require energy) and the corresponding inertia in the implementation of projects . So, in the long term until the middle of the next century, one can focus on a significant contribution to the world energy only those new sources for which the fundamental problems of mass use have already been solved today and the technical basis for industrial development has been created. The only competitor here to traditional fossil fuels can only be nuclear energy, which already provides about 20% of the world's electricity production with a developed raw material and production base for the further development of the industry. #2

The most important factors in the development of nuclear energy

In an increasingly competitive and multinational global energy market, a number of critical factors will influence not only the choice of energy type, but also the extent and nature of the use of different energy sources. These factors include:

optimal use of available resources;

reduction of total costs;

minimizing environmental impacts;

convincing demonstration of safety;

meeting the needs of national and international politics.

For nuclear power, these five factors determine future fuel cycle and reactor strategies. The goal is to optimize these factors.

While gaining public acceptance has not always been included as a critical factor, it is in fact a vital factor for nuclear power. The public and decision-makers need to be openly and credibly educated about the real benefits of nuclear power. The following discussion contains elements of a persuasive argument. The growing reluctance of the public, especially in industrialized countries, to accept the commissioning of new industrial installations affects policy throughout the energy sector and affects the implementation of all energy plant projects.

Maximum use of resources

The known and probable reserves of uranium should ensure a sufficient supply of nuclear fuel in the short to medium term, even if the reactors are operated primarily with single cycles involving spent fuel disposal. Problems in the fuel supply of nuclear energy may arise only by 2030, provided that nuclear power capacities are developed and increased by that time. Their solution will require the exploration and development of new uranium deposits in Russia, the use of accumulated weapons-grade and power-grade plutonium and uranium, and the development of nuclear energy using alternative types of nuclear fuel. One ton of weapons-grade plutonium in terms of the calorific value of organic fuel when “burned” in thermal reactors in an open fuel cycle corresponds to 2.5 billion cubic meters. m. of natural gas. A rough estimate shows that the total energy potential of weapons raw materials, with the use of fast neutron reactors in the nuclear power plant fleet, can correspond to the production of 12-14 trillion. kilowatt-hours of electricity, i.e. 12-14 annual outputs at the level of 1993, and save about 3.5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas in the electric power industry. However, as the demand for uranium grows and its reserves decrease due to the need to meet the needs of the growing capacities of nuclear power plants, there will be an economic need for the optimal use of uranium in such a way that all the energy potentially contained in it is generated per unit of ore. There are various ways to achieve this during the enrichment process and during the operational phase. In the long term, the reuse of accumulated fissile materials in thermal reactors and the introduction of fast breeder reactors will be required.

2. Achieving maximum economic benefit

Since fuel costs are relatively low, it is essential to the overall economic viability of nuclear power to reduce overall costs by reducing development, site selection, construction, operation and initial financing costs. Eliminating uncertainties and volatility in licensing requirements, especially before commissioning, would allow for more predictable investment and financing strategies.

P investment needs according to SIARE results (billion dollars)(SIARE - Joint Study of Alternatives for the Development of the Electricity Industry)

Table 3 #1

3. Achieve maximum environmental benefit

While nuclear power has clear advantages over current fossil fuel systems in terms of fuel consumption, emissions and waste, further measures to mitigate related environmental issues could have a significant impact on public attitudes.

Comparative data for fuel and waste (tonnes per year for a 1000 MW power plant)

Table 4 #8

Since the overall impact of the nuclear fuel cycle on human health and the environment is small, attention will be directed to improved practices in the field of radioactive waste. This would support sustainable development goals and at the same time increase competitiveness with other energy sources, which also need to properly address waste issues. Reactor systems and fuel cycles can be modified to minimize waste generation. Waste reduction design requirements and waste reduction methods such as compaction will be introduced.

4. Maximizing Reactor Safety

Nuclear power generally has an excellent safety record, with 433 reactors in operation averaging more than 20 years. However, the Chernobyl disaster showed that a very severe nuclear accident could lead to radioactive contamination on a national and regional scale. While safety and environmental issues are becoming paramount for all energy sources, many perceive nuclear power as particularly and inherently unsafe. Safety concerns, coupled with related regulatory requirements, will continue to have a strong impact on the development of nuclear power in the near future. A number of approaches will be implemented to reduce real and potential accidents at facilities. Extremely effective barriers (such as double containments) will reduce the likelihood of significant off-site radiological consequences from accidents to an extremely low level, eliminating the need for emergency plans. Improving the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel and reactor systems will also reduce the likelihood of on-site consequences. The internal safety of structures and processes in plants can be improved by incorporating passive safety features rather than active protection systems. As a viable option, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors using ceramic graphite fuel with high heat resistance and integrity, which reduces the likelihood of a release of radioactive material, may appear. #8

Pros and cons of nuclear energy

Over 40 years of nuclear power development in the world, about 400 power units have been built in 26 countries of the world with a total power capacity of about 300 million kW. The main advantages of nuclear energy are high final profitability and the absence of emissions of combustion products into the atmosphere (from this point of view, it can be considered as environmentally friendly), the main disadvantages are the potential danger of radioactive contamination of the environment by nuclear fuel fission products during an accident (such as at Chernobyl or at the American Trimile station). Island) and the problem of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Let's look at the benefits first. The profitability of nuclear energy is made up of several components. One of them is independence from fuel transportation. If a power plant with a capacity of 1 million kW requires about 2 million tons of fuel equivalent per year. (or about 5 million low-grade coal), then for the VVER-1000 unit it will be necessary to deliver no more than 30 tons of enriched uranium, which practically reduces the cost of transporting fuel to zero (at coal-fired power plants, these costs amount to 50% of the cost). The use of nuclear fuel for energy production does not require oxygen and is not accompanied by a constant release of combustion products, which, accordingly, will not require the construction of facilities to clean up emissions into the atmosphere. Cities located near nuclear power plants are basically environmentally friendly green cities in all countries of the world, and if this is not the case, then this is due to the influence of other industries and facilities located on the same territory. In this regard, TPPs paint a completely different picture. An analysis of the environmental situation in Russia shows that thermal power plants account for more than 25% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. About 60% of TPP emissions are in the European part and the Urals, where the environmental load significantly exceeds the limit. The most difficult ecological situation has developed in the Ural, Central and Volga regions, where the loads created by the fallout of sulfur and nitrogen in some places exceed the critical ones by 2-2.5 times.

The disadvantages of nuclear power include the potential danger of radioactive contamination of the environment during severe accidents such as Chernobyl. Now, at nuclear power plants using reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), additional safety measures have been taken, which, according to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), completely exclude an accident of this severity: as the design resource is exhausted, such reactors should be replaced by new generation reactors of increased security. Nevertheless, a change in public opinion in relation to the safe use of atomic energy will apparently not happen soon. The problem of disposal of radioactive waste is very acute for the entire world community. Now there are already methods of vitrification, bituminization and cementing of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, but territories are required for the construction of burial grounds, where these wastes will be placed for eternal storage. Countries with a small territory and high population density are experiencing serious difficulties in solving this problem. #2

Nuclear fuel and energy base of Russia.

The launch in 1954 of the first nuclear power plant with a capacity of only 5,000 kW was an event of world importance. It marked the beginning of the development of nuclear energy, which can provide humanity with electrical and thermal energy for a long period. At present, the global share of electricity generated by nuclear power plants is relatively small, about 17 percent, but in a number of countries it reaches 50-75 percent. A powerful nuclear power industry was created in the Soviet Union, which provided fuel not only for its nuclear power plants, but also for nuclear power plants in a number of other countries. Currently, NPPs in Russia, the CIS countries and Eastern Europe operate 20 units with VVER-1000 reactors, 26 units with VVER-440 reactors, 15 units with RBMK reactors and 2 units with fast neutron reactors. The supply of nuclear fuel to these reactors determines the volume of industrial production of fuel rods and fuel assemblies in Russia. They are manufactured at two plants: in Elektrostal - for VVER-440, RBMK and fast neutron reactors; in Novosibirsk - for VVER-1000 reactors. Tablets for VVER-1000 and RBMK fuel rods are supplied by a plant located in Kazakhstan (Ust-Kamenogorsk). #4

At present, out of 15 nuclear power plants built in the USSR, 9 are located on the territory of Russia; the installed capacity of their 29 power units is 21,242 megawatts. Among the operating power units, 13 have VVER vessel reactors (a pressurized water power reactor, the active zone of which is located in a metal or prestressed concrete case, designed for the total pressure of the coolant), 11 block-channel reactors RMBC-1000 (RMBC - graphite-water reactor The coolant in this reactor flows through pipes with fuel elements inside), 4 units - EGP (water-graphite channel reactor with boiling coolant) of 12 MW each are installed at the Bilibino APEC and another power unit is equipped with a BN-600 reactor on fast neutrons. It should be noted that the main fleet of the latest generation of pressurized reactors was located in Ukraine (10 VVER-1000 units and 2 VVER-440 units). #9

New power units.

The construction of a new generation of pressurized water reactor units begins this decade. The first of these will be VVER-640 units, the design and parameters of which take into account domestic and international experience, as well as units with an improved VVER-1000 reactor with significantly improved safety indicators. VVER-640 head power units are located at the sites of Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Region and Kola NPP, and on the basis of VVER-1000 - at the site of Novovoronezh NPP.

A design for a medium power vessel reactor VPBER-600 with an integrated layout has also been developed. Nuclear power plants with such reactors can be built a little later.

The mentioned types of equipment, provided that all research and experimental work is carried out in a timely manner, will meet the basic needs of the nuclear power industry for the predicted 15-20-year period.

There are proposals to continue work on graphite-water channel reactors, switch to an electric power of 800 megawatts and create a reactor that is not inferior to the VVER reactor in terms of safety. Such reactors could replace the existing RBMK reactors. In the future, it is possible to build power units with modern safe BN-800 fast neutron reactors. These reactors can also be used to involve power-grade and weapons-grade plutonium in the fuel cycle, to develop technologies for burning actinides (radioactive metal elements, all of whose isotopes are radioactive). #9

Prospects for the development of nuclear energy.

When considering the issue of the prospects for nuclear energy in the near (until the end of the century) and distant future, it is necessary to take into account the influence of many factors: the limitation of natural uranium reserves, the high cost of capital construction of nuclear power plants compared to thermal power plants, negative public opinion, which led to the adoption in a number of countries ( United States, Germany, Sweden, Italy) laws restricting the right to use a number of technologies in nuclear energy (for example, using Pu, etc.), which led to the curtailment of the construction of new facilities and the gradual withdrawal of spent ones without replacement with new ones. At the same time, the presence of a large stock of already mined and enriched uranium, as well as uranium and plutonium released during the dismantling of nuclear warheads, the availability of expanded breeding technologies (where the fuel unloaded from the reactor contains more fissile isotopes than was loaded) remove the problem of limiting the reserves of natural uranium, increasing the possibilities of nuclear energy up to 200-300 Q. This exceeds the resources of organic fuel and makes it possible to form the foundation of world energy for 200-300 years ahead.

But expanded breeding technologies (in particular, fast neutron breeder reactors) have not passed to the stage of mass production due to the backlog in the field of reprocessing and recycling (extraction of “useful” uranium and plutonium from spent fuel). And the most common modern thermal neutron reactors in the world use only 0.50.6% of uranium (mainly the fissile isotope U 238, whose concentration in natural uranium is 0.7%). With such a low efficiency of uranium use, the energy potential of nuclear energy is estimated at only 35 Q. Although this may be acceptable for the world community in the short term, given the already established relationship between nuclear and traditional energy and setting the growth rate of nuclear power plants worldwide. In addition, the technology of expanded reproduction gives a significant additional environmental burden. Today, it is quite clear to specialists that nuclear energy is, in principle, the only real and significant source of electricity for mankind in the long term, which does not cause such negative phenomena for the planet as the greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc. As you know, today, energy based on fossil fuels, that is, the combustion of coal, oil and gas, is the basis of electricity production in the world. The desire to preserve fossil fuels, which are also valuable raw materials, the obligation to set limits for CO emissions; or reduce their level and the limited prospects for large-scale use of renewable energy all point to the need to increase the contribution of nuclear power.

Considering all of the above, we can conclude that the prospects for the development of nuclear energy in the world will be different for different regions and individual countries, based on the needs and electricity, the size of the territory, the availability of fossil fuel reserves, the possibility of attracting financial resources for the construction and operation of such a rather expensive technology, the influence of public opinion in a given country, and a number of other reasons. #2

We will separately consider prospects for nuclear energy in Russia. The closed research and production complex of technologically related enterprises created in Russia covers all areas necessary for the functioning of the nuclear industry, including ore mining and processing, metallurgy, chemistry and radiochemistry, machine and instrument making, and construction potential. The scientific and engineering potential of the industry is unique. The industrial and raw material potential of the industry already makes it possible to ensure the operation of nuclear power plants in Russia and the CIS for many years to come, in addition, work is planned to involve the accumulated weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in the fuel cycle. Russia can export natural and enriched uranium to the world market, given that the level of uranium mining and processing technology in some areas exceeds the world level, which makes it possible to maintain positions in the world uranium market in the face of global competition.

But the further development of the industry without returning to it public confidence impossible. To do this, based on the openness of the industry, it is necessary to form a positive public opinion and ensure the possibility of the safe operation of nuclear power plants under the control of the IAEA. Taking into account the economic difficulties of Russia, the industry will soon focus on the safe operation of existing capacities with the gradual replacement of the spent units of the first generation with the most advanced Russian reactors (VVER-1000, 500, 600), and a slight increase in capacities will occur due to the completion of the construction of already started plants. In the long term, Russia is likely to increase its capacity in the transition to nuclear power plants of new generations, the level of safety and economic performance of which will ensure the sustainable development of the industry in the future.

In the dialogue of supporters and opponents of nuclear energy, complete and accurate information on the state of affairs in the industry both in a separate country and in the world, scientifically based forecasts of development and demand for nuclear energy are needed. Only on the path of openness and awareness can acceptable results be achieved. More than 400 units around the world (according to the IAEA Power Reactor Information System at the end of 1994, 432 nuclear power plants with a total capacity of approximately 340 GW were in operation in 30 countries) provide a significant share of society's energy needs. Millions of people in the world mine uranium, enrich it, create equipment and build nuclear power plants, tens of thousands of scientists work in the industry. This is one of the most powerful branches of modern industry, which has already become an integral part of it. And although the rise of nuclear energy is now giving way to a period of capacity stabilization, given the positions gained by nuclear energy over 40 years, there is hope that it will be able to maintain its share in world electricity production for a fairly long term, until a unified view in the world community is formed on the need and the scale of the use of nuclear energy in the world.

List of used literature:

# 1 ”Nuclear Energy in Alternative Energy Scenarios” Energy 1997 No. 4

# 2 .”Some economic aspects of the modern development of nuclear energy” Bulletin of Moscow State University 1997 No. 1

# 3 ”Status and prospects for the development of the electric power industry in Russia” BIKI 1997 No. 8

# 4 .International life 1997 No. 5, No. 6

# 5 .VEK 1996 No. 18, No. 13

# 6 .Nezavisimaya Gazeta 01/30/97

# 8 ”Nuclear Energy Strategy” International Life 1997 No. 7

# 9 “On the prospects of nuclear energy in Russia” June 1995

Nuclear energy (Nuclear energy) is a branch of the energy industry engaged in the production of electrical and thermal energy by converting nuclear energy.

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) form the basis of nuclear energy. The source of energy at nuclear power plants is a nuclear reactor in which a controlled chain reaction takes place.

The danger is associated with waste disposal problems, accidents leading to environmental and man-made disasters, as well as the possibility of using damage to these facilities (along with others: hydroelectric power plants, chemical plants, etc.) by conventional weapons or as a result of a terrorist attack as a weapon of mass destruction. The "dual use" of nuclear energy enterprises, the possible leakage (both authorized and criminal) of nuclear fuel from the production of electricity and its use for the production of nuclear weapons is a constant source of public concern, political intrigue and reasons for military action.

Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly form of energy. This is most obvious when getting acquainted with a nuclear power plant in comparison, for example, with a hydroelectric power station or a thermal power plant. The main advantage of a nuclear power plant is its practical independence from fuel sources due to the small amount of fuel used. At a thermal power plant, the total annual emissions of harmful substances, which include sulfur dioxide, oxides nitrogen, carbon oxides, hydrocarbons, aldehydes and fly ash. There are no such emissions at nuclear power plants. The costs of building a nuclear power plant are approximately at the same level as the construction of a thermal power plant, or slightly higher. During normal operation of a nuclear power plant, releases of radioactive elements into the environment are extremely insignificant . On average, they are 2-4 times less than from thermal power plants of the same capacity. The main disadvantage of nuclear power plants is the severe consequences of accidents.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the Chernobyl accident - the destruction on April 26, 1986 of the fourth power unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine). The destruction was explosive, the reactor was completely destroyed, and a large amount of radioactive substances was released into the environment. 31 people died during the first 3 months after the accident; the long-term effects of exposure, identified over the next 15 years, caused the death of 60 to 80 people. 134 people suffered from radiation sickness of varying severity, more than 115 thousand people from the 30-kilometer zone were evacuated. Significant resources were mobilized to eliminate the consequences, more than 600 thousand people participated in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident.

As a result of the accident, about 5 million hectares of land were withdrawn from agricultural circulation, a 30-kilometer exclusion zone was created around the nuclear power plant, hundreds of small settlements were destroyed and buried (buried with heavy equipment). Radioactive substances spread in the form of aerosols, which gradually settled on the earth's surface.

RW-radioactive waste - solid, liquid or gaseous products of nuclear energy and other industries containing radioactive isotopes. The most dangerous and difficult to dispose fraction is RW - all radioactive and contaminated materials generated in the process of human use of radioactivity and not finding further use. To RW includes spent nuclear power plant fuel elements (TVELs), NPP structures during their dismantling and repair, parts of medical devices with radioactivity, working clothes of NPP employees, etc. RW should be stored or disposed of in such a way that the possibility of their release into the environment is excluded.

Disposal of radioactive waste in rocks.

To date, it is generally recognized (including the IAEA) that the most effective and safe solution to the problem of final disposal of radioactive waste is their disposal in repositories at a depth of at least 300-500 m in deep geological formations in compliance with the principle of multi-barrier protection and the mandatory transfer of liquid radioactive waste into a solidified state. The experience of underground nuclear testing has proved that with a certain choice of geological structures, there is no leakage of radionuclides from the underground space into the environment.

Surface burial.

The IAEA defines this option as the disposal of radioactive waste, with or without engineered barriers, in:

1. Near-surface burials at ground level. These burials are at or below the surface, where the protective coating is approximately several meters thick. Waste containers are placed in built-in storage chambers, and when the chambers are full, they are packed (filled). Eventually, they will be closed and covered with an impenetrable wall and topsoil.

2.2. Surface burials in caves below ground level. Unlike near-surface disposal at ground level, where excavation is carried out from the surface, shallow burials require underground excavation, but the disposal is located several tens of meters below the ground surface and is accessible through a gently sloping mine working.

Direct injection

This approach concerns the injection of liquid radioactive waste directly into a rock formation deep underground, which is chosen for its suitable waste containment characteristics (i.e. any further movement after injection is minimized).

Removal at sea.

Disposal at sea refers to radioactive waste transported by ships and dumped into the sea in packages designed:

To explode at depth, resulting in the direct release and dispersion of radioactive material into the sea, or

To dive to the bottom of the sea and reach it intact.

After some time, the physical containment of the containers will no longer work, and the radioactive substances will disperse and dilute into the sea. Further dilution will cause the radioactive materials to migrate away from the release site under the influence of currents. The method of disposing low and medium level waste into the sea has been practiced for some time.

Similar information.

Nuclear power is mostly associated with the Chernobyl disaster that happened in 1986. Then the whole world was shocked by the consequences of the explosion of a nuclear reactor, as a result of which thousands of people received serious health problems or died. Thousands of hectares of polluted territory where it is impossible to live, work and grow crops, or an ecological way of obtaining energy, which will be a step towards a brighter future for millions of people?

Advantages of nuclear energy

The construction of nuclear power plants remains profitable due to the minimal cost of energy production. As you know, coal is needed for the operation of thermal power plants, and its daily consumption is about a million tons. In addition to the cost of coal, the cost of transporting fuel is added, which also costs a lot. As for nuclear power plants, this is enriched uranium, in connection with which there are savings on the cost of transporting fuel and on its purchase.


It is also impossible not to note the environmental friendliness of the operation of nuclear power plants, because for a long time it was believed that it was nuclear energy that would put an end to environmental pollution. Cities that are built around nuclear power plants are environmentally friendly, since the operation of reactors is not accompanied by a constant release of harmful substances into the atmosphere, and the use of nuclear fuel does not require oxygen. As a result, the ecological catastrophe of cities can only suffer from exhaust gases and the operation of other industrial facilities.

Savings in this case also occur due to the fact that it is not required to build treatment facilities to reduce emissions of combustion products into the environment. The problem with pollution of large cities today is becoming more and more urgent, since often the level of pollution in cities where thermal power plants are built exceeds the critical indicators of air pollution with sulfur, fly ash, aldehydes, carbon oxides and nitrogen by 2–2.5 times.

The Chernobyl disaster has become a great lesson for the world community, in connection with which it can be said that the operation of nuclear power plants is becoming safer every year. Practically at all nuclear power plants, additional safety measures were installed, which greatly reduced the possibility that an accident like the Chernobyl disaster would occur. Reactors of the Chernobyl RBMK type were replaced by new generation reactors with increased safety.

Cons of nuclear energy

The main disadvantage of nuclear energy is the memory of how, almost 30 years ago, an accident occurred at a reactor, an explosion at which was considered impossible and practically unrealistic, which caused a worldwide tragedy. It happened because the accident affected not only the USSR, but the whole world - a radioactive cloud from the current Ukraine went first towards Belarus, after France, Italy, and so reached the United States.

Even the thought that one day this could happen again causes many people and scientists to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants. By the way, the Chernobyl disaster is not considered the only accident of this kind, the events of the accident in Japan at Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant and Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant - 1 where a fire started as a result of a powerful earthquake. It caused the melting of nuclear fuel in the reactor of block No. 1, due to which a radiation leak began. This was a consequence of the evacuation of the population, which lived at a distance of 10 km from the stations.

It is also worth remembering a major accident at, when 4 people died and over 200 people were injured from hot steam from the turbine of the third reactor. Every day, through the fault of man or as a result of the elements, accidents at nuclear power plants are possible, as a result of which radioactive waste will enter food, water and the environment, poisoning millions of people. It is this that is considered the main disadvantage of nuclear energy today.

In addition, the problem of disposal of radioactive waste is very acute, large areas are needed for the construction of burial grounds, which is a big problem for small countries. Despite the fact that the waste is bituminous and hidden behind the thickness of iron and cement, no one can accurately assure everyone that it will remain safe for people for many years. Also, do not forget that the disposal of radioactive waste is very expensive, due to the cost savings on vitrification, incineration, compaction and cementing of radioactive waste, their leakage is possible. With stable funding and a large territory of the country, this problem does not exist, but not every state can boast of this.

It is also worth noting that during the operation of nuclear power plants, as in every production, accidents occur, which causes the release of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, land and rivers. The smallest particles of uranium and other isotopes are present in the air of cities where nuclear power plants are built, which causes environmental poisoning.

conclusions

Although nuclear energy remains a source of pollution and possible disasters, it should be noted that its development will continue, if only for the reason that it cheap way to get energy, and hydrocarbon fuel deposits are gradually being exhausted. In skillful hands, nuclear energy can indeed become a safe and environmentally friendly way to generate energy, but it is still worth noting that most disasters have occurred precisely because of man.

In problems related to the disposal of radioactive waste, international cooperation is very important, because only it can provide sufficient funding for the safe and long-term disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Energy consumption in the world is growing much faster than its production, and the industrial use of new promising technologies in the energy sector, for objective reasons, will begin no earlier than 2030. The problem of shortage of fossil energy resources is becoming more and more acute. The possibilities of building new hydroelectric power plants are also very limited. Do not forget about the fight against the greenhouse effect, which imposes restrictions on the combustion of oil, gas and coal at thermal power plants.

The solution to the problem can be the active development of nuclear energy. At the moment, a trend has emerged in the world, called the “nuclear renaissance”. Even the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant could not affect this trend. Even the most reserved IAEA forecasts say that up to 600 new power units can be built on the planet by 2030 (there are more than 436 now). The increase in the share of nuclear energy in the global energy mix can be affected by factors such as reliability, acceptable cost compared to other energy sectors, relatively small amount of waste, and availability of resources. Considering all of the above, we will formulate the main advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy:

Advantages of nuclear energy

• 1. Huge energy intensity of the fuel used. 1 kilogram of uranium enriched to 4%, when fully burned, releases energy equivalent to burning about 100 tons of high-quality coal or 60 tons of oil.
• 2. Ability to reuse fuel (after regeneration). Fissile material (uranium-235) can be used again (unlike ash and fossil fuel slag). With the development of fast neutron reactor technology, in the future, a transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible, which means the complete absence of waste.
• 3. Nuclear energy does not contribute to the creation of the greenhouse effect. Every year, nuclear power plants in Europe avoid the emission of 700 million tons of CO 2 . Operating nuclear power plants, for example, in Russia annually prevent the release of 210 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Thus, the intensive development of nuclear energy can indirectly be considered one of the methods to combat global warming.
• 4. Uranium is a relatively inexpensive fuel. Uranium deposits are quite widespread in the world.
• 5. Maintenance of nuclear power plants is a very important process, but it does not need to be done as often as refueling and maintenance of traditional power plants.
• 6. Nuclear reactors and their associated peripherals can operate in the absence of oxygen. This means that they can be completely insulated and, if necessary, placed underground or under water without ventilation systems.
• 7. Nuclear power plants, built and operated with all precautions, can help the world economy get rid of its over-reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Disadvantages of nuclear energy

• 1. Mining and enrichment of uranium may expose personnel involved in these activities to radioactive dust, as well as lead to the release of this dust into the air or water.
• 2. Waste from nuclear reactors remains radioactive for many years. Existing and prospective methods of their disposal are associated with technical, environmental and political problems.
• 3. Although the risk of sabotage at nuclear power plants is small, the potential consequences of sabotage - the release of radioactive materials into the environment - are very serious. These risks cannot be ignored.
• 4. The transportation of fissile materials to power plants for use as fuel and the transportation of radioactive waste to their disposal (burial) sites can never be an absolutely safe business. The consequences of a security breach can be catastrophic.
• 5. Fissile nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands can provoke nuclear terrorism or blackmail.
• 6. Due to the risk factors listed above, various public organizations resist the widespread use of nuclear power plants. This contributes to the growth of a wary attitude in society towards nuclear energy in general, especially in the United States.

I think that in the territory of the countries of the former Soviet Union, when it comes to nuclear power plants, many people immediately have a glimpse of the Chernobyl tragedy in their heads. This is not easy to forget and I would like to understand the principle of operation of these stations, as well as find out their pros and cons.

The principle of operation of a nuclear power plant

A nuclear power plant is a kind of nuclear installation, in front of which the goal is to produce energy, and subsequently electricity. In general, the forties of the last century can be considered the beginning of the era of nuclear power plants. In the USSR, various projects were developed regarding the use of atomic energy not for military purposes, but for peaceful ones. One such peaceful purpose was the production of electricity. In the late 1940s, the first work began to bring this idea to life. Such stations operate on a water reactor, from which energy is released and transferred to various coolants. In the process of all this, steam is released, which is cooled in the condenser. And then through the generators, the current goes to the houses of city residents.

All the pros and cons of nuclear power plants

I'll start with the most basic and bold plus - there is no dependence on the large use of fuel. In addition, the cost of transporting nuclear fuel will be extremely small, unlike conventional fuel. I want to note that this is very important for Russia, given that the same coal is delivered here from Siberia, and this is extremely expensive.

Now, from an environmental point of view: the amount of emissions into the atmosphere per year is approximately 13,000 tons, and, no matter how large this figure may seem, compared to other enterprises, the figure is quite small. Other pros and cons:

• a lot of water is used, which worsens the environment;
• electricity generation is practically the same in cost as at thermal power plants;
• a big drawback is the terrible consequences of accidents (there are enough examples).

I also want to note that, after the nuclear power plant stops its work, it must be liquidated, and this can cost almost a quarter of the construction price. Despite all the shortcomings, nuclear power plants are quite common in the world.