Nuclear resuscitation

On the eve of this year’s Chornobyl anniversary, nuclear power engineering has become an especially acute topic. In particular, a new concept for the development of Ukraine’s fuel-energy complex was discussed at a meeting of the Ukrainian Nuclear Society held late last week.

Nuclear experts appear prepared to shoulder the main burden of increasing Ukraine’s generating capacities. “The FEC development concept for 2006-2030 was drawn up by scientists in coordination with the National Academy’s Institute of Power Engineering. It envisages an increase in power plants’ generating capacities of up to 88.5 million kW by 2030 to secure the prognosticated electricity consumption level (allowing for exports). The most realistic option could be to increase nuclear power output up to 52 percent of the total amount generated; this means a twofold increase of nuclear power plants’ capacities, up to 29.5 million kW, the experts believe.

This problem can be solved by building a number of nuclear power units or by prolonging the service life of existing ones for another 15 years. International experts are against such extensions, as they pose a serious ecological risk. Implementing this plan would also require substantial funds. According to the Ukrainian Nuclear Society’s estimates, 487.8 billion hryvnias will have to be spent on the electrical power industry by 2030 to secure the development and functioning of the fuel-energy complex, compared to 21.7 billion hryvnias required by the nuclear fuel complex. This is a considerable difference, although realizing the project will allow Ukraine to enhance its energy safety, produce a strategic oil and natural gas reserve to be used in emergencies, and regulate market prices.

The nuclear industry is also working to diversify fuel sources. Whereas before only Russian fuel elements were used, a sample of US Westinghouse fuel has now been tested at one power unit at the South Ukrainian Nuclear Power Station. According to Ivan Nekliudov, academic secretary of the National Academy’s Nuclear Physics and Power Engineering Department, preliminary estimates indicate that this alternative fuel matches the Russian one.

“I’m not sure, however, that it will be better or less expensive,” he pointed out. Anyway, no one doubts the pressing need for another supplier. “A country that generates more than 50 percent electricity must take good care of its security,” noted the president of the Ukrainian Nuclear Society and MP Volodymyr Bronnikov.

If the Russian supplier suffers a system error or another problem, this must not force Ukraine to stop its power units. “We simply cannot afford such dependence,” Bronnikov summed up. Therefore, an alternative supplier means, above all, a guarantee of energy safety. Ukraine has a program of its own, but without a complete nuclear cycle. This program, however, will be effective only after technological and ecological conditions are created in the event that Russia stops receiving waste fuel from other countries owing to political or other kinds of decisions.

Ukrainian nuclear experts are also faced with the task of transforming the Chornobyl complex into an ecologically safe system. Many still believe that this task will be solved for Ukraine by the international community. Bronnikov says that “even 20 years later the Chornobyl disaster is still regarded as another occasion for nuclear scientists to show up in sackcloth and ashes.” The safety of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Station (ChAES) is more on the political rather than scientific plane, because there is no state program that would guarantee the allocation of the required technological, scientific, and financial resources to carry out a plan that could be entitled “A Safe ChAES.” Not a single Ukrainian government has been able to focus experts’ efforts on the development of such a program.” Bronnikov believes that it is necessary to clearly determine how to dispose of nuclear waste. “We must make Power Unit 4 ecologically safe,” he stressed and added that there are no economic resources for storing spent nuclear fuel correctly. To date the Zaporizhia nuclear power station is the only one in Ukraine to have coped successfully with this problem by using a licensed safe storage facility.

For the most part, nuclear fuel wastes are transported to Russia. Russian legislation states that radioactive wastes originating in other countries cannot be stored there. Russia has no immediate plans for recycling Ukrainian fuel. In keeping with existing arrangements, Ukraine must take it back and bury it on its own territory. But this is easier said than done.

The energy-saving problem also remains to be solved. According to the concept, Ukraine must place its energy consumption at the world level by 2020. Expert estimates indicate that three-quarters of electricity generated in Ukraine are wasted. Can this be described as an attempt to rejuvenate the industry? Nuclear experts say it is more of an attempt to resuscitate it.