This article continues the debate on choosing a sequel to a strategy for the development of nuclear energy in the country. The provisions set forth in articles by the National Research Center Kurchatov Institute on the transition to a thorium-uranium nuclear fuel cycle are analyzed and compared with the Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Energy in Russia to 2050 and Prospects for the Period to 2100, which the Presidium of the Scientific and Technical Council of Rosatom State Corporation approved in 2018. The environmental impacts of nuclear power under these two approaches are compared. It is concluded that in an open nuclear fuel cycle thorium-uranium fuel has no significant advantages, including in the sphere of radiation safety.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Energy in Russia in the First Half of the 21st Century. Basic Provisions, Minatom of Russia, Moscow (2000).
E. O. Adamov, L. A. Bol’shov, I. Kh. Ganev, et al., White Book of Nuclear Energy, E. O. Adamov (ed.), NIKIET, Moscow (2001).
P. N. Alekseev, V. G. Asmolov, A. Yu. Gagarinskii, et al., “Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Energy in Russia until 2050,” At. Energ., 111, No. 4, 183–196 (2011).
E. P. Velikhov, M. V. Koval’chuk, and V. I. I’gisonis, “A nuclear energy system with fission and fusion reactors –strategic benchmark for the development of the industry,” Vopr. At. Nauki Tekhn. Ser. Termoyad. Sintez, 40, No. 4, 5–13 (2017).
E. P. Velikhov, A. O. Gol’tsev, V. D. Davidenko, et al., “Acceptability of closure of the fuel cycle of nuclear energy,” Vopr. At. Nauki Tekhn. Ser. Termoyad. Sintez, 44, No. 1, 5–13 (2021).
E. O. Adamov, L. M. Zabud’ko, and V. I. Matveev, “Comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of using mixed uranium-plutonium metallic and nitride fuel in fast reactors,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk. Energetika, No. 2, 3–15 (2015).
E. O. Adamov, P. N. Martynov, V. I. Rachkov, and A. P. Sorokin, “On the matter of choosing a coolant for inherent safety of nuclear power plants,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk. Energetika, No. 6, 3–14 (2015).
E. O. Adamov, G. N. Vlaskin, A. V. Lopatkin, et al., “Radiation-equivalent circulation of radioactive nuclides in the nuclear fuel cycle – an effective alternative to the delayed solution of the problem of the accumulation of spent nuclear fuel,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk. Energetika, No. 6, 15–25 (2015).
E. O. Adamov and V. I. Rachkov, “New technological platform for the formation of a national strategy for the development of nuclear energy,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk. Energetika, No. 2, 3–12 (2017).
G. N. Vlaskin, V. I. Rachkov, and Yu. Khomyakov, “Neutron-physical substantiation of Np, Am, Cm transmutation.” At. Energ., 116, No. 5, 262–266 (2014).
A. V. Lopatkin, Fuel Cycle of Russia’s Large-Scale Nuclear Energy Industry Based on the Principles of Fuel–Radiation Balance And Non-Proliferation: Doctoral Dissertation in Technical Sciences, NIKIET, Moscow (2013).
E. O. Adamov, A. A. Kashirskii, E. V. Murav’ev, and D. A. Tolstoukhov, “Structure and parameters of two-component nuclear power in the transition to nuclear fuel cycle closure,” Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Energetika, No. 5, 1–19 (2016).
NP 091-14, Federal Norms and Rules ontThe Use of Atomic Energy. Safety Security on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. General Provisions, Federal Service for Environmental, Technological, and Nuclear Supervision (2014).
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1069, On the Criteria for Classifying Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Waste as Radioactive Waste, Criteria for Classifying Radioactive Waste as Special Radioactive Waste, and for Disposable Radioactive Waste and Classification Criteria for Disposable Radioactive Waste, Dec. 30, 2012.
Unified Industry Guidelines for the Development of a Local Concept for the Decommissioning of a Nuclear Facility, Approved by Rosatom State Corporation, Order No. 1/1215-P, Dec. 15, 2014.
Federal Law No. 7-FZ, On Environmental Protection, Jan. 10, 2002.
“ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,” Ann. ICRP, 37, No. 2–4, 1–332 (2007).
Fundamental Principles of Safety. Fundamentals of Security, Ser. IAEA Safety Standards No. SF-1, IAEA, Vienna (2007).
V. C. Ivanov, and E.O. Adamov (eds.), Next Generation Nuclear Energy: Radiological Viability and Environmental Benefits, Pero, Moscow (2019).
V. K. Ivanov, S. Yu. Chekin, A. N. Menyailo, et al., “Radiation and radiological equivalence of radioactive waste in two-component nuclear energy,” Rad. Risk, 28, No. 1, 5–25 (2019).
Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options. A Comparative Study, NEA, Paris (2000).
E. O. Adamov, A. V. Dzhalavyan, A. V. Lopatkin, et al., Conceptual Provisions of a Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Energy of Russia Until 2100, NIKIET, Moscow (2012).
V. I. Rachkov, Fundaments of the Theory of Dangerous Systems, Nauka, Moscow (2015).
E. O. Adamov (ed.), White Book of Nuclear Energy. Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle with Fast Reactors, NIKIET, Moscow (2020).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Translated from Atomnaya Énergiya, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp. 131–141, March, 2022.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Adamov, E.O., Ivanov, V.K., Mochalov, Y.S. et al. On the Matter of Different Approaches to a National Strategy for the Development of Nuclear Energy. At Energy 132, 133–142 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-023-00916-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-023-00916-5