Russian BN-800 fast breeder reactor active, first gen IV reactor!

[xenomorph555]

Its finally ready after the massive wait. Building upon R and D for 60 years and great success the worlds largest, most powerful and most advanced liquid sodium fast breeder reactor. Not only is the reactor incredibly safe, it is efficient and is said to be able to neutralise russia's waste somewhat. The reactor went critical on the 27th July, this is big news for me and others who promote nuclear, especially new, advanced nuclear. Good times ahead!

[lajoswinkler]

That's good news, but I'd be happier if they would spend some money on building containment domes over all of the reactors in Beloyarsk. I'm all for nuclear energy, but I don't like Russian stance on containments. It's a nuclear fission reactor, not a cake factory.

[Firov]

It's not easy finding good info on this reactor, but it's a fairly standard Sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, yes? Based on what I'm seeing, I'm not sure it really qualifies as a "Generation IV" reactor. Perhaps Generation III+, but as I understand it Generation IV reactors are still a decade or two off. This appears to be an enlarged BN-600 with some additional safety features.

That said, it's still good to see new breeder reactors being built. If we had more investment in that technology we could massively cut down on the amount of long-term nuclear waste. Sadly the US is seemingly determined to avoid breeder reactors at any and all costs out of "proliferation" concerns. How exactly secured nuclear plants in the middle of the US will to lead to "nuclear proliferation" is beyond me, but that's the stated reasoning.

Personally, I'm still a fan of the CANDU reactors. Powerful, safe, versatile, and capable of acting as a breeder.

[xenomorph555]

It's not easy finding good info on this reactor, but it's a fairly standard Sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, yes? Based on what I'm seeing, I'm not sure it really qualifies as a "Generation IV" reactor. Perhaps Generation III+, but as I understand it Generation IV reactors are still a decade or two off. This appears to be an enlarged BN-600 with some additional safety features.

That said, it's still good to see new breeder reactors being built. If we had more investment in that technology we could massively cut down on the amount of long-term nuclear waste. Sadly the US is seemingly determined to avoid breeder reactors at any and all costs out of "proliferation" concerns. How exactly secured nuclear plants in the middle of the US will to lead to "nuclear proliferation" is beyond me, but that's the stated reasoning.

Personally, I'm still a fan of the CANDU reactors. Powerful, safe, versatile, and capable of acting as a breeder.

As for designation, it's more advanced then gen 3+, so either gen 4 or 3++ or maybe 3+++...

As for the reactor itself, there are not many advanced schematics on the internet but I can say it's much more then an enlarged bn-600.

[xenomorph555]

That's good news, but I'd be happier if they would spend some money on building containment domes over all of the reactors in Beloyarsk. I'm all for nuclear energy, but I don't like Russian stance on containments. It's a nuclear fission reactor, not a cake factory.

I do have to agree with that, not sure why they don't have containment, possibly to make it commercially better or maybe it's because bn-600 has a good track record.

[Streetwind]

Maybe we can start by defining what exactly makes a reactor "Gen III" and what exactly makes another one "Gen IV".

[xenomorph555]

Maybe we can start by defining what exactly makes a reactor "Gen III" and what exactly makes another one "Gen IV".

And why they made gen 3+ in the first place.

As for gen 4:

Good safety (at least walkaway for a day)

Good efficiency (uses less fuel/create more)

Can neutralise waste

Good economically

[Firov]

I do have to agree with that, not sure why they don't have containment, possibly to make it commercially better or maybe it's because bn-600 has a good track record.

It's my understanding that it doesn't have a containment vessel because, quite simply, it doesn't need one. As a sodium cooled reactor its coolant loop isn't operating under pressure, which obviously eliminates the possibility for a steam/pressure explosion. Though, there's still the possibility for low pressure leaks, and with something as reactive as sodium, that's not a good thing.

The BN-600 reactor run by Russia has experienced 14 sodium fires at the plant, and 21 total sodium leaks, one of which leaked 1000 liters of sodium into the plant. In it's defense though, the BN-600 was designed to suffer sodium fires with minimal impact to the reactor. It's got a number of redundant sodium coolant loops, which operate independently of one another. As a result, during those fires the plant was operational again within 24 hours, if it was shut down at all.

Still, even with that being the case, hopefully they've managed to reduce the chances of sodium leaks in the BN-800. 21 coolant leaks leading to 14 fires seems... excessive for a nuclear power-plant. If you have to worry about your nuclear power plant bursting into flames all the time, you may wish to redesign it.

By comparison, the most serious safety incident the CANDU has suffered from is extremely low level tritium emissions, and there are a lot more operational CANDU plants.

EDIT - Also, according to the World Nuclear Association the BN-800 is considered Gen III+, though Rosatom (the company that manufactures the BN series FBR's) plans to submit the design of the BN-1200 to the Generation IV International Forum for approval as a generation IV design.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Firov

[xenomorph555]

It's my understanding that it doesn't have a containment vessel because, quite simply, it doesn't need one. As a sodium cooled reactor its coolant loop isn't operating under pressure, which obviously eliminates the possibility for a steam/pressure explosion. Though, there's still the possibility for low pressure leaks, and with something as reactive as sodium, that's not a good thing.

The BN-600 reactor run by Russia has experienced 14 sodium fires at the plant, and 21 total sodium leaks, one of which leaked 1000 liters of sodium into the plant. In it's defense though, the BN-600 was designed to suffer sodium fires with minimal impact to the reactor. It's got a number of redundant sodium coolant loops, which operate independently of one another. As a result, during those fires the plant was operational again within 24 hours, if it was shut down at all.

Still, even with that being the case, hopefully they've managed to reduce the chances of sodium leaks in the BN-800. 21 coolant leaks leading to 14 fires seems... excessive for a nuclear power-plant. If you have to worry about your nuclear power plant bursting into flames all the time, you may wish to redesign it.

By comparison, the most serious safety incident the CANDU has suffered from is extremely low level tritium emissions, and there are a lot more operational CANDU plants.

I guess, the last accident at bn-600 was in the early 90's apparently.

And yes, candu's are good, Canadians know their stuff when it comes to nuclear energy!

[lajoswinkler]

It's my understanding that it doesn't have a containment vessel because, quite simply, it doesn't need one. As a sodium cooled reactor its coolant loop isn't operating under pressure, which obviously eliminates the possibility for a steam/pressure explosion. Though, there's still the possibility for low pressure leaks, and with something as reactive as sodium, that's not a good thing.

The BN-600 reactor run by Russia has experienced 14 sodium fires at the plant, and 21 total sodium leaks, one of which leaked 1000 liters of sodium into the plant. In it's defense though, the BN-600 was designed to suffer sodium fires with minimal impact to the reactor. It's got a number of redundant sodium coolant loops, which operate independently of one another. As a result, during those fires the plant was operational again within 24 hours, if it was shut down at all.

Still, even with that being the case, hopefully they've managed to reduce the chances of sodium leaks in the BN-800. 21 coolant leaks leading to 14 fires seems... excessive for a nuclear power-plant. If you have to worry about your nuclear power plant bursting into flames all the time, you may wish to redesign it.

By comparison, the most serious safety incident the CANDU has suffered from is extremely low level tritium emissions, and there are a lot more operational CANDU plants.

EDIT - Also, according to the World Nuclear Association the BN-800 is considered Gen III+, though Rosatom (the company that manufactures the BN series FBR's) plans to submit the design of the BN-1200 to the Generation IV International Forum for approval as a generation IV design.

Of course it needs one. Containment domes shield from aircraft impacts, earthquakes, hydrogen explosions, fission product escape, etc. It's not just about steam explosions. It's a tomb in case anything goes horribly wrong and the interior needs to be shielded from the rest of the world.

Every nuclear power plant absolutely has to have a containment dome. No discussion about that.

[Nuke]

yes but i think a containment building for a water/steam cooled plant needs to have a 400x the volume of the coolant within the reactor. if you eliminate the steam explosions, you can have a much smaller containment building.

[Firov]

Of course it needs one. Containment domes shield from aircraft impacts, earthquakes, hydrogen explosions, fission product escape, etc. It's not just about steam explosions. It's a tomb in case anything goes horribly wrong and the interior needs to be shielded from the rest of the world.

Every nuclear power plant absolutely has to have a containment dome. No discussion about that.

A "containment dome"? Absolutely not. Steel containment domes as you know them are primarily useful in preventing or containing steam and hydrogen explosions, neither of which is a threat in a sodium cooled reactor. That's one of the advantages. Same goes with molten salt reactors. There's no possibility of high pressure explosions as the coolant is at or just above ambient air pressure, and no chance of significant hydrogen build-up since the coolant isn't water.

Now that said, I think you're confused if you believe these reactors are simply exposed to the biosphere. They are housed in sealed, reinforced concrete structures with redundant ventilation and fire suppression systems. The BN series reactors also have considerable filtration systems in place to help in the event of a sodium fire. For example, while the sodium fires are troubling at the BN-600 reactor, none of those fires resulted in an event that was classified above a Level 1 event on the INES scale. So yes, they do have containment, but they don't have, nor do they require, conventional "containment domes".

[jfull]

It's very easy to get frightened away from the idea of nuclear power... but then you see stuff like this:

...and you realize just how much potential it has

[xenomorph555]

It's very easy to get frightened away from the idea of nuclear power... but then you see stuff like this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png

...and you realize just how much potential it has

Then double it and BOOM *THORIUM* , ultimate energy fuel!

[Sky_walker]

Jesus, not again thorium theorists.

Energy density (MJ/L) :

Uranium: 1,539,842,000

Thorium: 929,214,000

Get out with your "ultimate energy fuel".

[lajoswinkler]

yes but i think a containment building for a water/steam cooled plant needs to have a 400x the volume of the coolant within the reactor. if you eliminate the steam explosions, you can have a much smaller containment building.

That is true, it can be a lot smaller if steam explosions are eliminated, but consider that the working medium still is steam in steam generators (second loop) which need to be housed inside containments. Steam generators are quite large structures.

A "containment dome"? Absolutely not. Steel containment domes as you know them are primarily useful in preventing or containing steam and hydrogen explosions, neither of which is a threat in a sodium cooled reactor. That's one of the advantages. Same goes with molten salt reactors. There's no possibility of high pressure explosions as the coolant is at or just above ambient air pressure, and no chance of significant hydrogen build-up since the coolant isn't water.

Now that said, I think you're confused if you believe these reactors are simply exposed to the biosphere. They are housed in sealed, reinforced concrete structures with redundant ventilation and fire suppression systems. The BN series reactors also have considerable filtration systems in place to help in the event of a sodium fire. For example, while the sodium fires are troubling at the BN-600 reactor, none of those fires resulted in an event that was classified above a Level 1 event on the INES scale. So yes, they do have containment, but they don't have, nor do they require, conventional "containment domes".

I was not talking about containment domes, but containments themselves. No, this power plant doesn't have one. Using your definition of containment we could say Chernobyl reactors also had them - those huge lids sitting on top of huge reinforced concrete vessels. But it wasn't a containment in the true sense.

In the unlikely event of a meltdown when the vessel is breached and the lava flows down, where will the fission products go?

What is there's a meltdown and a breach of secondary loop?

Nuclear fission reactors must be able to isolate themselves from the environment. There's absolutely no discussion about this. I'm very pro-nuclear, but this kind of recklessness I do not tolerate. One such accident with new generation reactors and we've got a huge problem with politics.

[sgt_flyer]

Jesus, not again thorium theorists.

Energy density (MJ/L) :

Uranium: 1,539,842,000

Thorium: 929,214,000

Get out with your "ultimate energy fuel".

Quick note though uranium values would be good if all the uranium was consumed during the process - which is not possible with solid fuel rods - so you end up with a lot of wasted uranium (because the other radioactive elements generated during fission would disrupt fission)

A molten salt based reactor intend to only extract used materials from the fuel

So thorium is less 'energetic' but you waste much less of it

(And you can achieve higher temperatures - so better efficiency)

Aah if we could make uranium molten salts reactor, things would be different

[Firov]

I was not talking about containment domes, but containments themselves. No, this power plant doesn't have one. Using your definition of containment we could say Chernobyl reactors also had them - those huge lids sitting on top of huge reinforced concrete vessels. But it wasn't a containment in the true sense.

What? The RBMK was a water cooled reactor, and as such was prone to high pressure explosions or, worse, hydrogen gas explosions. That's exactly the kind of incident that steel containment domes are designed to help mitigate. So no, don't confuse the two. Sodium cooled reactors can not experience a violent explosion like that. The only water used in a sodium cooled reactor is for the steam generation, but that does not interface directly with the core, nor is the steam generation loop required to be operational for the safe operation of that reactor, unlike coolant loops.

In the unlikely event of a meltdown when the vessel is breached and the lava flows down, where will the fission products go?

What is there's a meltdown and a breach of secondary loop?

One of the design requirements is that radioactive materials can't escape the facility or cause structural damage [Source]. Since it wouldn't be under pressure you wouldn't need to worry about an explosion ejecting core fragments, so you only need worry about gravity.

Nuclear fission reactors must be able to isolate themselves from the environment. There's absolutely no discussion about this. I'm very pro-nuclear, but this kind of recklessness I do not tolerate. One such accident with new generation reactors and we've got a huge problem with politics.

Again, you seem to think just because it doesn't have a giant steel pressure dome that it's directly exposed to the biosphere. That is simply not the case. These structures are completely sealed from the outside environment, and the structures that are built around these reactors are not light-weight. I can't find any info on the BN-800, but the BN-1200 is designed to survive considerable impacts, including aircraft collisions. Source

Low pressure reactors don't require giant steel containment domes because operate on somewhat different principles.

[lajoswinkler]

What? The RBMK was a water cooled reactor, and as such was prone to high pressure explosions or, worse, hydrogen gas explosions. That's exactly the kind of incident that steel containment domes are designed to help mitigate. So no, don't confuse the two. Sodium cooled reactors can not experience a violent explosion like that. The only water used in a sodium cooled reactor is for the steam generation, but that does not interface directly with the core, nor is the steam generation loop required to be operational for the safe operation of that reactor, unlike coolant loops.

I know the differences between those reactors. I just said RBMK also had a containment in the sense of containment you're describing, that's all.

One of the design requirements is that radioactive materials can't escape the facility or cause structural damage [Source]. Since it wouldn't be under pressure you wouldn't need to worry about an explosion ejecting core fragments, so you only need worry about gravity.

If there is absolutely no chance of the volatile fission products to leak out, then I guess it's ok.

Again, you seem to think just because it doesn't have a giant steel pressure dome that it's directly exposed to the biosphere. That is simply not the case. These structures are completely sealed from the outside environment, and the structures that are built around these reactors are not light-weight. I can't find any info on the BN-800, but the BN-1200 is designed to survive considerable impacts, including aircraft collisions. Source

Low pressure reactors don't require giant steel containment domes because operate on somewhat different principles.

No, I do not think that and I was clear on that. There isn't a working commercial fission reactor exposed to the biosphere anywhere. Even RBMKs weren't.

All I want to know is if BN-800 can tolerate aircrafts. All typical containments can, whether they're half spheres, cyllinders or something in between.

This is not a matter of resistance to overpressures only, it's about actual stability against impacts.

[Nuke]

That is true, it can be a lot smaller if steam explosions are eliminated, but consider that the working medium still is steam in steam generators (second loop) which need to be housed inside containments. Steam generators are quite large structures.

i dont think the secondary loop is going to be a major point of failure. steam in the secondary is at a lower temperature and pressure than the primary loop (they feed low pressure turbines). this loop is isolated from the core by a heat exchanger and steam could be easily and safely vented into the environment an emergency (and likely equipped with emergency relief valves to prevent pressure runaways). you still need the loop to dispose of heat for you, so you can't really live without it, but its not the part of the reactor that goes boom when things get hot.

[lajoswinkler]

i dont think the secondary loop is going to be a major point of failure. steam in the secondary is at a lower temperature and pressure than the primary loop (they feed low pressure turbines). this loop is isolated from the core by a heat exchanger and steam could be easily and safely vented into the environment an emergency (and likely equipped with emergency relief valves to prevent pressure runaways). you still need the loop to dispose of heat for you, so you can't really live without it, but its not the part of the reactor that goes boom when things get hot.

Steam generators actually are common points of failure because they tend to clog up. They're huge and obviously, there's a lot of piping inside. They clog up with rust.

I don't recall any accident where it lead to sudden catastrophic failure of the system (it's more like something that gradually reduces the quality of the system), but operators are required to know what to do in case there's a large breach in the secondary loop and pressure drop. They have it in their tests.

But what if there's a breach between the first and the second loop? That's one of the reasons why the steam generators are inside containments. They can be isolated from the tertiary loop if they become contaminated. It's a normal scenario. It's highly unlikely, but it's something the operators learn to handle.

[Idobox]

Its finally ready after the massive wait. Building upon R and D for 60 years and great success the worlds largest, most powerful and most advanced liquid sodium fast breeder reactor. Not only is the reactor incredibly safe, it is efficient and is said to be able to neutralise russia's waste somewhat. The reactor went critical on the 27th July, this is big news for me and others who promote nuclear, especially new, advanced nuclear. Good times ahead!

I'd just like to point out that liquid sodium is not incredibly safe at all. Sure, it can't explode the way a PWR would, but liquid sodium is a nightmare.

Also, as much as I know, in case of accident, the thing will spew Iodine and Caesium about as much as a water cooled reactor would.

So to sum up, less chances of catastrophic failure, but still the same risks of meltdown, and in case of leak, you can't use water hoses.

[lajoswinkler]

True. Liquid sodium is truly a nightmare. I worked with it plenty of times, but thankfully never had an accident.

The only way to extinguish it when it's burning is dry inert powders. Graphite works well, copper also. Silica sand, too. Sodium fires don't look like regular fires, they're more like smouldering yellow piles. But if you add water or anything that reacts with sodium (carbon tetrachloride for example), you're in for a treat, and a visit to the ER.

It gives off smoke made of sodium oxides which react with moisture to form sodium hydroxide fog. Now imagine a meltdown with liquid alkali metal contaminated with fission products. It's pure hell to manage. The fog is absolutely corrosive to humans and lots of materials.

That's why these things need absolute isolation. Core catchers and spreaders, and complete thick seal from the environment.

[xenomorph555]

I and the scientists know the dangers of sodium, but Ill be honest THE JAPANESE ARE IDIOTS THAT HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO WORK NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. The Russians are incredibly skilled, especially with sodium, they haven't had a problem since the early 90's, heck they even offered help to the japanese but they were too snobby, it could have been fixed in weeks...

You shouldn't look at certain accidents and generalize them, if a tesla model s car sets on fire you shouldn't try to ban all electric cars.

However I agree that more containment should be used.

[TheGatesofLogic]

It's not easy finding good info on this reactor, but it's a fairly standard Sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, yes? Based on what I'm seeing, I'm not sure it really qualifies as a "Generation IV" reactor. Perhaps Generation III+, but as I understand it Generation IV reactors are still a decade or two off. This appears to be an enlarged BN-600 with some additional safety features.

That said, it's still good to see new breeder reactors being built. If we had more investment in that technology we could massively cut down on the amount of long-term nuclear waste. Sadly the US is seemingly determined to avoid breeder reactors at any and all costs out of "proliferation" concerns. How exactly secured nuclear plants in the middle of the US will to lead to "nuclear proliferation" is beyond me, but that's the stated reasoning.

Personally, I'm still a fan of the CANDU reactors. Powerful, safe, versatile, and capable of acting as a breeder.

The only reason gen IV reactors are considered a decade off is because most companies investing in nuclear power have been heavily refocusing on small modular reactor designs. In fact, most Gen IV designs could be built right now with existing technologies, but the profit isn't there as much as for modular designs which allow for higher versatility and faster manufacturing processes as well as simpler containment and also have the benefit of extremely easy scaling in comparison to multiple-gigawatt reactors. That and the fact that President Carter said essentially: "no reprocessing!"

For those who still actually take chernobyl seriously please read up on why making a boiling water reactor with a positive temperature coefficient without nearly any shielding at all is a very bad idea.

For those who take Fukushima seriously please read up on how incompetent the initial japanese response was and also how hard protection against the biggest earthquake in half a century followed immediately by a tsunami is to make in comparison to the actually quantity of high-level-long-lasting waste was released and you might change your tune.

Also, lajoswinkler, hah, one time i was testing different salts at their melting points for the microstructures produced at phase transitions and one of my assistants spilled tetraborofluorate salts on the floor. When you see hydroflouric acid fumes spreading throughout the lab you run faster than you would ever think possible

Edited August 1, 2014 by TheGatesofLogic