Illusion of a non-peaceful atom. Are US nuclear weapons safe? Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Fighters Against Nuclear Power

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 the lack of fossil energy resources is becoming more and more acute. The possibilities for the construction of 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 power. At the moment, a tendency has emerged in the world, which has received the name "nuclear renaissance". Even the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant could not influence this trend. Even the most conservative forecasts of the IAEA say that up to 600 new power units may be built on the planet by 2030 (there are now more than 436 of them). An increase in the share of nuclear energy in the global energy balance may be influenced by such factors as reliability, an acceptable level of costs compared to other energy sectors, a relatively small amount of waste, and the availability of resources. Considering all of the above, let us formulate the main advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power:

The benefits of nuclear power

• 1. Huge energy intensity of the fuel used. 1 kilogram of uranium enriched to 4%, when completely burned up, releases energy equivalent to burning about 100 tons of high-quality coal or 60 tons of oil.
• 2. Possibility of reuse of fuel (after regeneration). Fissile material (uranium-235) can be reused (unlike fossil fuel ash and slag). With the development of fast neutron reactor technology, a transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible, which means a complete absence of waste.
• 3. Nuclear power does not contribute to the creation of the greenhouse effect. Nuclear power plants in Europe avoid the emission of 700 million tons of CO2 every year. Operating nuclear power plants, for example, in Russia, annually prevent the emission of 210 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Thus, the intensive development of nuclear power can be indirectly considered one of the methods of combating global warming.
• 4. Uranium is a relatively inexpensive fuel. Uranium deposits are widespread in the world.
• 5. Maintenance of nuclear power plants is a very important process, but it does not need to be carried out as often as refueling and maintenance of traditional power plants.
• 6. Nuclear reactors and 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 due diligence, can help the global economy to eliminate overdependence on fossil fuels for electricity.

Disadvantages of nuclear power

• 1. Mining and enrichment of uranium may expose personnel involved in these works to radioactive dust, and also lead to the release of this dust into the air or water.
• 2. Waste from nuclear reactors remains radioactive for many years. Existing and promising disposal methods pose technical, environmental and political challenges.
• 3. Although the risk of sabotage at nuclear power plants is small, the potential consequences - the release of radioactive materials into the environment - are very serious. Such risks cannot be neglected.
• 4. Transportation of fissile materials to power plants for use as fuel and transportation of radioactive waste to their disposal (burial) can never be absolutely safe. The consequences of a security breach can be catastrophic.
• 5. Falling into the wrong hands of fissile nuclear materials can provoke nuclear terrorism or blackmail.
• 6. Due to the above risk factors, the widespread use of nuclear power plants is resisted by various public organizations. This is fueling a growing public awareness of nuclear energy in general, especially in the United States.

January 31, 2014 (version 2)
Yusen ASUKA, Professor, Tohoku University
Seung-yeon PARK, Associate Professor, Kwangsei Gakuin University
Mutsuyoshi NISHIMURA, Former UN Climate Change Ambassador
Tohru MOROTOMI, Professor, Kyoto University

Dear Doctors Caldeira, Emanuel, Hanseny and Vili,
Let us introduce ourselves: we scientists in Japan are engaged in research and development of recommendations for combating climate change from an economic and political perspective. We write to you in response to your letter “To those who are involved in the development of environmental policy, but do not support the development of nuclear energy” (Caldeira et al., 2013).

First of all, we would like to express our respect and sincere admiration for your works, which are of great importance in the study of climate change problems. However, in view of the dire consequences of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, we, as members of Japanese society, would like to make some comments regarding your views on strengthening the role of nuclear energy in climate change mitigation measures.

We believe that the argument “the need for nuclear power in view of the severity of climate change problems” requires careful scrutiny, and this is our main reason for making these notes. It is not easy to compare the risks of nuclear energy with the risks of other energy sources and environmental issues. When discussing the risks of nuclear power, we must not forget the fact that any serious accident at a nuclear power plant has irreversible consequences. In this sense, we believe that you and other scientists may have underestimated the risks of nuclear energy, while underestimating the role of other measures in preventing climate change, for example: fuel substitution, renewable energy sources, and energy conservation. Later in the letter we will talk about how that climate change skeptics' arguments are far more supported in the political arena in Japan than you might imagine. They argue that climate change mitigation is a scheme invented by proponents of nuclear energy to promote it. Therefore, we, Japanese scientists, would like to emphasize the necessity and possibility of finding a universal solution that could remove the risks of both nuclear energy and climate change. We are concerned that a letter from eminent scientists like you who support nuclear energy as a mitigation measure may reinforce the arguments of such skeptics and ultimately replace the purpose of your letter about the need for a better understanding of mitigation measures.

Further in the letter, we would like to talk about the following: what we mean by the risks of nuclear power, its cost, about new generation reactors, about the possibility of applying climate change mitigation measures without nuclear power, and about the current state of affairs in Japan. We sincerely hope that the information in this letter will help you in your further research into mitigation options.

Content:

2. Comparison of the number of fatal incidents
3. Cost of nuclear energy production
4. Worst-case scenario avoided in Japan
5. Introduction of nuclear power plants along with coal power plants
6. The role of new generation reactors
7. Opportunities to achieve the goal at 20C without the use of atomic energy
8. Conclusion: Politics without "Russian Roulette"
1. The likelihood of accidents at nuclear power plants
The most important factor in comparing the risks and safety levels of nuclear power generation and other energy sources is the likelihood of major accidents at nuclear power plants. As you know, in 1997, William Nordhaus carried out a detailed analysis of the rationality of a nuclear-free policy in Sweden. However, as assumptions in his work, the following was taken: "the probability of severe accidents, the consequences of which will lead to the melting of the reactor core, is one million reactor years to one hundred million (one reactor year is a year of operation of one reactor)." However, such a low probability is due to modeling using the Probable Risk Assessment (RIA), and at the same time, it was accepted as a "safety goal" by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Japan's nuclear policy failed due to the fact that that both branches of government, the executive and the judiciary, believed these figures as “evidence of safety.” The simulation of the Probable Risk Assessment, such as the analysis of the event tree, was only a relative number that was intended to improve the forecast of NPP operation. This was not a number that could be used as an absolute "proof of safety."

What if we offered some insurance company that professionally evaluates risks to assess insurance payments in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant at the lowest insurance rate, which, in turn, would be based on such a probability? Rest assured, no insurance company would sign an insurance policy on such terms.

Next, we would like to tell you how the Japanese Nuclear Insurance Pool established the insurance rate in 1997, a few years before the Fukushima accident. At that time, the amount insured for damages was only 30 billion yen (about 0.3 billion dollars) for each facility (the actual cost of the accident at Fukushima would be at least 10 trillion yen). Moreover, conditions were established that exempted from insurance payments in case of accidents due to earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc., in accordance with Japanese legislation. In 1997, about 2.3 billion yen of insurance premiums were paid to insurance companies for 23 nuclear power plants, which is 0.1 billion yen per facility. Taking this figure as an approximate net insurance premium, this made us understand that the insurance companies estimated the probability of an accident, worth 30 billion yen in compensation, when radioactive substances enter the external environment, which will be once every 300 years at one nuclear power plant without even taking into account accidents due to natural disasters. In other words, if insurance companies were to calculate the premium based on the aforementioned probability every 10 million years, the insurance fee would be only ¥ 3,000 per item. However, they didn't.

After the Fukushima accident, the Atomic Energy Committee under the Japanese government reviewed all the costs and risks associated with nuclear power plant accidents. The idea presented to the Committee was that the probability of an accident is one in 500 reactor years, taking into account the fact that Japan has had three major accidents in 1,500 reactor years. Which would mean, as if there were 50 reactors in operation, as it was before the Fukushima accident, there would be one major accident every 10 years.

In order to reconsider the risks of accidents at nuclear power plants, one should look at things realistically, at least we believe that the number obtained by modeling the Risk Probability Assessment should not be used as the probability of real nuclear accidents, and the use of this number is problematic when discussing the probability of risk.

2. Comparison of the number of fatal incidents

When comparing the risks of nuclear energy and alternative sources of electricity generation, the number of fatalities is often used, especially the number of deaths from the effects of air pollution from coal combustion in developing countries. The argument is often heard that the death toll from air pollution is significantly higher than from nuclear power, and therefore nuclear power is needed as a measure to reduce air pollution (Revkin, 2013).

In general, the projection of the number of deaths from air pollution refers to the work of Arden Pope et al. (2002), which examined the relationship between products that pollute the air, such as AP2.5 (aerosol products), and the rate of early mortality. In this study, Arden Pope used statistics available in the United States to show an association between an increase in mortality, mainly from heart failure and lung cancer, and an increase in AP2.5. The "predicted increase in mortality" was calculated by multiplying the relative increase in mortality for a certain number of the population. While there is no doubt that air pollution causes serious health problems, we understand that it is inappropriate to directly compare the damage from air pollution to the damage from radioactive pollution. Because the symptoms and fatalities are very different.

As for Fukushima, so far not a single death has been recorded directly related to exposure to radioactive substances. The point is not that an accident at a nuclear power plant and the effects of radiation are "safe", but that most people, hundreds of thousands, were evacuated relatively quickly from the contaminated area. Nevertheless, the effect of radioactive substances, for example, iodine-131, manifests itself before to a certain extent and its long-term consequences have not yet been determined.

The most serious is the indirect impact of atomic accidents on mortality. During the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, most of the Tohoku disaster area (northeast) received immediate rescue assistance organized by both the citizens and the Japanese armed forces. and the USA. However, on the coastal territories of Fukushima, no one, not even the armed forces, was able to arrive due to the threat of radiation contamination and therefore the victims were without help for a long time. This led to the so-called indirect deaths, people who died as a result of difficult and long-term evacuations, or those who committed suicide, worrying about the radioactive contamination of their land and animals, and who lost hope of ever returning to normal life. These deaths were due to a nuclear power plant accident, and their number increased to 1,459 as of September 2013 according to the Fukushima Prefecture Bureau (Fukushima Minpo, September 6, 2013). Despite the fact that deaths are considered indirect, nevertheless they would not have happened if there had not been an accident at the nuclear power plant.

As of November 2013, the number of people evacuated as a result of the Fukushima accident was about 159 thousand people (according to the Agency for Reconstruction, 2013). Moreover, there are many areas, not only in Fukushima Prefecture, but also in the northeastern and Kanto regions of Japan, where high concentrations of radioactive materials have been found. Most of the residents of these areas were forced to evacuate for a long time. In other words, there are a lot of people who had to leave their hometowns, who lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods and their homes as a result of the nuclear power plant accident. Many women left their hometowns to give birth, and some of them decided not to give birth at all. for fear that the fetus might be irradiated. As a result, the population and the number of newborns have decreased in many regions since the Fukushima accident. For example, in 2010, the population of the city of Koriyama in Fukushima was about 340 thousand people; as of January 2013, there was a decrease in the number of newborns by 34% compared to January 2011 (according to data from Koriyama, 2013).

In the event of accidents at nuclear power plants, tens of thousands of people may be forced to evacuate depending on the severity of the accident, destroying local communities, human lives, and even leading to the loss of lives that could be born. This is the range of possible losses in case of accidents at nuclear power plants. The risks from such accidents are incredibly huge. Given these factors, we believe that it is meaningless to simply compare the risks of nuclear power with the risks of air pollution based on the projected increase in mortality due to disease.

3. Cost of nuclear energy production
Another argument for the need for nuclear energy as a measure to mitigate climate change is the assumption that the cost of nuclear energy production is low relative to the cost of generating energy from alternative sources. However, there are many doubts on this score.

In discussions on the cost of generating nuclear power, the Japanese government released figures (5.9 yen / kWh: an estimate made by the Japanese government in 2004) that drew criticism, being very low, even before the Fukushima accident. This is because the published energy cost data were taken from an ideal plant model and did not include, for example, research and development costs (Oshima, 2011). In fact, these costs were borne by the Japanese in taxes.

In addition, in Japan, electricity producers are exempt from liability, as well as in the United States, on the basis that responsibility for accidents at nuclear power plants falls on the entire nuclear industry (power generating companies). That is, this means that if any manufacturer equipment for the nuclear power plant will supply defective products, which would lead to an accident at the reactor in the future, he still will not bear any responsibility. If manufacturers are responsible for their products, they will avoid producing such works or products, or will raise their prices.

After the Fukushima accident, the Japanese government recalculated the cost of power generation and included social costs such as development costs and emergency costs (emergency response, compensation, recovery costs), the cost increased to 8.9 yen per kWh or more for nuclear power. energy (it was assumed that the cost will increase if the costs of accidents increase in the future, in fact, the costs of accidents have increased since the recalculation), 9.5 yen / kWh for coal power, 10.7 yen / kWh for stations on natural gas, 9.9 to 17.3 yen / kWh for wind farms (onshore), 33.4 to 38.3 yen / kWh for solar power plants (residential) as of 2010 (Energy and Environment Council, 2011) However, the data on the cost of nuclear power generation does not include the cost of storing nuclear waste, the cost of decommissioning reactors, and especially insurance compensation. If these costs were included, then the cost would no doubt reach 100 yen / kWh, as shown in some studies (Mikami, 2013). In addition, despite the fact that today the cost of wind and solar energy remains all still relatively high in Japan, international prices for electricity from renewable energy sources are falling rapidly. For example, according to the latest report on renewables, the cost of wind (onshore) energy ranges from 5 to 16 cents / kWh for OECD countries, from 4 to 16 cents / kWh for non-OECD countries. For solar energy (residential), 20 to 46 cents / kWh for OECD countries, 28 to 55 cents / kWh for non-OECD countries, and 16 to 38 cents / kWh for Europe. For terrestrial solar power plants, the cost is as follows: 12 to 38 cents / kWh for OECD countries, 9 to 40 cents / kWh for non-OECD countries, and 14 to 34 cents / kWh for Europe (Renewable Energy Development Network in the 21st century, 2013).
In other words, the cost of nuclear energy production only seems low compared to other energy sources and only because it does not include external costs, which turned out to be quite significant. If you do not take into account the real state of affairs, then operating a nuclear power plant is similar to driving a car without car insurance, and therefore the relatively high competitiveness is rapidly declining.

4. Worst-case scenario avoided in Japan

Let's discuss here what actually happened in Japan. At the time of the accident at NPP No. 1 in Fukushima, the emergency response team was located in the Head Seismic Resistant Building on the territory of the NPP. This Seismic Resistant Head Building was the only building on the entire NPP site that was built in compliance with earthquake resistance, and therefore avoided destruction due to earthquake. would be completely out of control.

In fact, this Earthquake Resistant Head Building was built due to another earthquake that happened in 2007 in Niigata Prefecture, where another large nuclear power plant is located. This type of building was constructed and put into operation in January 2010 at the nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture and in July 2010 at NPPs No. 1 and No. 2 in Fukushima (TEPCO 2010). If the earthquake on March 11 had happened only 9 months earlier, when there was still no Head Earthquake Building at NPP No. 1 in Fukushima, and accordingly there would have been no the ability to operate a nuclear reactor, this would lead to the immediate evacuation of most of the TEPCO personnel and other NPP staff. Moreover, if the earthquake happened not at lunchtime on a weekday, but on weekends or at night, when there are fewer nuclear power plant personnel, it is very likely that it would be extremely difficult to control a nuclear reactor.

According to the documents of March 25, 2011, Mr. Sansake Kondo, at that time the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Committee, if the above situation had happened, a more powerful explosion of hydrogen would have occurred, which would have provoked the release of a significant amount of radioactive substances from Unit 1, and would have to be evacuated of all NPP employees. Then, even more radioactive substances would get into the air from reactors 2 and 3 as well as from the cooling pool of unit 4, which would require the evacuation of all people living within a radius of 250 km. In turn, this would lead to the evacuation of about 30 million people living in the metropolis of Tokyo. These documents were shown to only a limited number of people from the Japanese government at the time of the accident, and the information became public much later in the fall of 2011.

If the earthquake had happened a few months earlier, or even a few hours later or earlier, then it would have become impossible to cool the molten cores of reactors or storage pools, and it would have required the evacuation of several tens of millions of people, including those from Tokyo. Calming ourselves with the thought that we were able to avoid the "destruction" of the eastern part of Japan, the accident at NPP # 1 in Fukushima looks like a "comfort in the midst of a disaster."

Also, one should not forget about terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants. The accident at nuclear power plant No. 1 in Fukushima showed the whole world how easy it is to cause a nuclear reactor to melt simply by destroying its cooling system, this can be done by turning off the power supply by attacking a power grid complex with conventional weapons. There are currently hundreds of power line towers that could be targeted by terrorist attacks with explosives. If some of these pillars are eroded, the Fukushima nightmare could repeat itself in Japan.

5. Introduction of nuclear power plants along with coal power plants
The theory of introducing nuclear power plants in order to reduce the decline in the number of coal-fired thermal power plants looks too naive in political sense; in fact, nuclear power plants and coal-fired thermal power plants were built and commissioned in Japan at the same time. We considered nuclear and coal energy as a complex, when coal plants are reserve in the event of a decrease in energy production at nuclear power plants. As a consequence, Japan has consistently increased the number of coal-fired thermal power plants while actively promoting nuclear power, which ultimately resulted in an increase in CO2 emissions.

The most important reason for this is that the stakeholders in the promotion of nuclear energy are the same parties that promote coal energy, i.e. bureaucrats from the economy, energy companies, large manufacturers of heavy machinery, as well as energy intensive industries. Since they are in a mutually beneficial relationship, they are economically interested in building a powerful centralized energy system in order to increase assets and electricity sales. Thus, these stakeholders are not very enthusiastic about implementing energy saving and renewable energy measures. In Japan, the government and other stakeholders have deliberately promoted a compromise on the relationship between nuclear energy and climate change mitigation measures. Climate change measures are “shielded” to promote nuclear energy. Many Japanese people eventually adopted this idea.

And as a conclusion for Japan: in order to reduce the number of coal plants, it is necessary to reform the industry through the introduction of a nuclear-free policy. In addition, we believe that these events that took place in Japan can be repeated in any other country where industry and economy are at the same stage of development.

6. The role of new generation reactors
You may also share the view that safer next-generation reactors cannot pose such problems. However, the number of third-generation reactors equipped with a "passive safety system", which are said to have higher safety standards, is only no more than 20 % of 76 nuclear power plants under construction worldwide as of January 2013 (Japan Nuclear Industry Forum, 2013). At the same time, the overwhelming majority of other nuclear power plants have reactors of the second generation (Gartwaite, 2011). Most of the operating nuclear reactors are built using basic technologies 30-40 years ago. Meanwhile, the commercialization of fourth generation reactors, which are said to be safer, will take quite a long time.

If you recommend building new, safer nuclear power units, we believe that we should also advocate for the shutdown of existing hazardous nuclear power plants. At the same time, there will be a need to advocate for a ban on the export of old nuclear technology to developing countries, even though Japan and other countries are currently doing such exports.

Moreover, if we continue to observe that manufacturers are exempt from liability for product quality and bear limited liability for enterprises generating nuclear energy, as long as private insurance companies still refuse to insure damage, then there will be no basis even for theoretical premises about “new and safe nuclear power plants ”. If you want to promote safe nuclear power plants, we believe that these systems need to be reviewed.

Regardless of how safe a reactor is, the problem of nuclear waste will always remain. Asking future generations to deal with nuclear waste will be more ethical, just as future generations will be burdened by climate change.

However, it takes much more time to implement safe nuclear power plants. Therefore, the assumption that nuclear power can be used as one of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future to achieve the 20C target is unrealistic.

7. Opportunities to achieve the goal at 20C without the use of atomic energy
Several studies have been carried out to determine whether it is possible to achieve the ambitious goal of combating climate change without using nuclear energy. In 2010, Edenhofer compared low-carbon scenarios using five different energy conservation models and found that the additional cost required to end nuclear investment in 2000 would be only 0.7% of GDP in 2100. Scientists conducted research taking into account the nuclear-free policy movement after the Fukushima accident. In 2012, Bauer, for example, argues that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions required to limit the 20C rise in global average temperature from the preindustrial era will be achievable at an additional cost of less than 0.1% of GDP by 2020 or less. 0.2% by 2050 without the use of nuclear energy. Duscha (2013) argues that introducing a nuclear-free policy will increase global greenhouse gas emissions by 2% by 2020, but by that time developed countries will be able to reach the 20C target for an additional spending of only 0.1% of GDP. Duscha also examined other studies, and concluded that most of the existing studies also indicate that ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved for an additional fee of 1% of GDP worldwide without nuclear power. Moreover, the research data do not include the benefits of reducing damage from climate change interventions. The inclusion of such benefits will undoubtedly lead to the fact that the application of climate change measures will increase its economic value.

Some may criticize these calculations as weak results of economic and energy modeling, but there are several facts supporting these calculations, including the rapid decline in natural gas prices and the reduction in the cost of introducing renewable energy sources, which were much more than expected. Moreover, many countries have already demonstrated how political levers, such as feed-in tariffs, influence the proliferation of renewable energy sources.

Whether the choice of measures to prevent climate change or energy balance options, the most controversial issues are economic costs, the timing and willingness of people to pay. As discussed above, if we can overcome vested interests, then the 20C goal is quite achievable both technologically and economically without nuclear and coal energy. Further, the introduction of renewable energy technologies and the most energy efficient preferred option, not only because of their significant role in climate change mitigation, but also in terms of energy security and the creation of new manufacturing jobs. If we do not rely on nuclear power, it will also have a positive effect on reducing the proliferation of plutonium and turning it into a nuclear weapon. This will also reduce the cost of storing radioactive waste in the future, thereby reducing the burden on future generations.

8. Conclusion: Politics without "Russian Roulette"
It is a shame to see how the international community as a whole is unable to act quickly to mitigate climate change despite the growing severity and severity of the problem. At first glance, nuclear energy seems to be an effective measure in preventing climate change, but if you analyze everything in detail, then nuclear energy can create problems of economic feasibility and ethical norms, no matter in what role, either as a measure to prevent climate change, or in as a source of energy.

In fact, by promoting nuclear power, which is increasingly supported by coal, we can get extremely unfavorable results, as described above. At the beginning of this letter, we spoke of the skeptics in Japan about climate change, and many of these people have long played an important role in the movement against nuclear power in Japan. They rallied against the territory of the Japanese government that "nuclear energy is necessary as a measure against climate change" and therefore they are also reluctant to accept the idea of \u200b\u200banthropogenic climate change.

A country like Japan, which survived the Fukushima atomic accident, may be exceptional in that it lacks managerial capabilities in various areas. However, it is one of the most economically developed countries in the world with a relatively democratic political system. Japan is a country that has prided itself on "the world's highest level of safety" for operating nuclear power plants for more than 40 years. On the other hand, many countries that want to build nuclear power plants today are far from wealthy and often have an undemocratic system. building new nuclear power plants in such countries is doubtful and even dangerous that the international community is going to allow the promotion of nuclear energy as a measure to prevent climate change. We sincerely hope that the international community is fully aware of the gravity of the nuclear disaster that Japan received on March 11, and will rethink its position on climate change and energy balancing measures that will not rely on Russian roulette. nuclear energy.

According to the definition most widespread in the scientific and pseudo-scientific literature, low-energy nuclear reactions (generally accepted abbreviation - LENR) are nuclear reactions in which the transmutation of chemical elements occurs at ultra-low energies, and is not accompanied by the appearance of hard ionizing radiation.

Cold nuclear fusion is usually understood as the reaction of fusion of nuclei of hydrogen isotopes at a temperature significantly lower than in thermonuclear reactions. Unfortunately, the majority of physicists do not distinguish between LENR and CNS.

There is a widespread belief that such processes are impossible according to the canons of nuclear physics. This opinion was even legitimized by the decision of the commission on pseudoscience under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the late 1990s, which was announced by its then leader, Academician E.P. Kruglyakov.

As a result, classical scientific works were ranked as pseudoscience. For example, the Commission's definition of LENR includes electronic capture discovered by L.W. Alvarez in 1937. The reverse reaction, the so-called β-decay into a bound state, also undoubtedly refers to LENR-processes. The first mention of it dates back to 1947. The theory of β-decay into a bound state was created in 1961. This process was investigated experimentally at a large international nuclear center in Darmstadt at the end of the 20th century.

But that's not all. In 1957, the phenomenon of muon catalysis of nuclear fusion reactions in cold hydrogen was discovered at the Berkeley nuclear center! It turned out that if one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule is replaced by a mueson, then the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms included in this molecule can enter into a fusion reaction.

Moreover, if this molecule is heavy hydrogen, then the nuclear fusion reaction proceeds with a very high probability. The group of experimenters was headed by the same L.U. Alvarez. In other words, both "low-energy transmutation of chemical elements" and "cold nuclear fusion" (and this is not exactly the same thing) were discovered by the same scientist.

For these and other outstanding discoveries (creation of the bubble chamber), he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968.

So the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience slightly overdid it in the struggle "for the purity of the ranks." The case when the decision of the Nobel Committee was de facto annulled at such a high level has no precedents in the history of science!

The deviant behavior of the scientific community regarding the LENR and CNF problems does not end with disregard for the opinion of the Nobel Committee. If you open the journal "Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk" vol. 71, issue. 4. for 1960, there you can see a review by Ya.B. Zeldovich (academician, three times Hero of Socialist Labor) and S.S. Gerstein (academician) entitled "Nuclear Reactions in Cold Hydrogen".

It summarizes the prehistory of the discovery of CNF, and also provides a link to the practically inaccessible work of A.D. Sakharova "Passive mesons". In addition, the review mentions that the CNC phenomenon (mu-catalysis in cold hydrogen) was predicted by Sir F.Ch. Frank (Fellow of the Royal Society of London), A.D. Sakharov (Academician, three times Hero of Socialist Labor, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate) and Academician Ya.B. Zeldovich.

But, despite this, the head of the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience, Academician E.P. Kruglyakov, as noted, declared CNS a pseudoscience, although the article “Nuclear Reactions in Cold Hydrogen” was written about mu catalysis and piezo nuclear reactions in a very clear, detailed and convincing manner.

The only thing that can to some extent serve as an excuse for the overly loose use of the terminology used in the polemics by the Commission on Pseudoscience is that its attacks on "transmutologists" were mainly aimed at suppressing any research on cold fusion reactions in condensed environments (condensed matter nuclear science - CMNS).

Unfortunately, at the same time, very promising scientific directions fell under the "distribution".

As the analysis of the history of CMNS has shown, the destruction of this scientific area by the Commission on Pseudoscience under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was by no means disinterested. The reprisal was carried out against a very dangerous competitor, whose victory in a scientific dispute could mean a complete cessation of budgetary funding for work on the problem of controlled thermonuclear fusion (CTF).

In the context of the economic crisis of the 1990s, this would mean the closure of many research institutes that are part of the RAS. The Academy of Sciences could not allow this, and did not hesitate in choosing the means of dealing with competitors.

But this is only one, and, it seems, not the main reason why the CNF turned out to be an “ugly duckling” from nuclear physics. Any specialist who is well acquainted with the CNF problem can confirm that the theoretical prohibitions on the LENR and CNF phenomena are so serious that it is not possible to overcome them.

It was this argument that influenced the attitude of most physicists to the problem under discussion. It was a clear understanding of how serious the arguments of theorists were that forced many, even highly qualified physicists, to reject any reports of the experimental detection of LENR, CNS or CMNS.

The prolonged disregard by most physicists of the experimentally confirmed fact of the existence of low-energy nuclear processes is a regrettable delusion.

The described processes are still classified by many scientists as non-existent according to the well-known principle: “this cannot be, because this can never be”.

To this it should be added that, in addition to the "saddleness effect" that made nuclear physicists skeptical about the very possibility of low-energy transmutation of chemical elements and cold nuclear fusion, an ominous role in the cool attitude of professionals to the subject matter was played by various kinds of "transmutologists" who claimed to invent a new "Philosopher's stone".

The lack of professionalism of the "new alchemists" and the irritation caused by them among professionals who are well familiar with the essence of the problem have led to the fact that research in the promising field of human knowledge has been frozen for decades.

However, in the process of fierce criticism of the works of "transmutologists" scientists, who expressed the official point of view on the problem of cold nuclear fusion, accidentally forgot that the term "pseudoscience" means rather praise than condemnation.

After all, it has long been known that all modern science comes from pseudoscience. Physics - from metaphysics, chemistry - from alchemy, medicine - from quackery and shamanism.

The authors believe that there is little point in listing numerous specific examples. But the fact that the ideas of Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus were considered by their contemporaries not just pseudoscientific, but sheer heresy, should not be forgotten. This has already happened in modern history ...

Currently, the physics of cold nuclear fusion and low-energy transmutation of chemical elements has got into a similar story. And, by no means, not in Russia alone!

In all fairness, it should be noted that there is a commission on pseudoscience similar to the Russian one in the United States. It works in the same way as in the Russian Federation. Moreover, in law-abiding America, the ban on federal funding for "pseudoscientific" research is absolute, and in Russia, some particularly cunning scientists somehow manage to bypass these bans. However, in other countries too.

While the official Russian science got rid of "pseudoscientists", American, French and Japanese competitors did not waste time. For example, in the United States, cold fusion research has been declared pseudoscience for civilians only.

In the laboratories of the US Navy, research has been carried out since the early 1990s. According to unverified reports, more than 300 physicists and engineers, almost blindly, without having any acceptable theory, have been working in Livermore for over 20 years on the creation of cold fusion installations. Their efforts were crowned with the creation of prototypes of nuclear power reactors with a capacity of about 1 MW.

Currently, work is underway in the USA and Italy to create LENR reactors (heat generators) operating on nickel-hydrogen cells. A. Rossi is the undisputed leader of these studies.

Leonardo Technologies Inc. also joined the LENR and HNF research process. (LTI), Defkalion Green Technologies (Greece), E.ON (Italy), etc. Cold nuclear fusion is no longer a science.

This is an engineering practice, moreover, very successful. And it is only in Russia that any attempts to openly state support for scientific work in this direction are still suppressed.

The objectives of this publication are to show the possibilities of describing LENR, CNS and CMNS in terms of orthodox nuclear physics, and to assess the prospects for the practical use of these phenomena in energy and other areas of human activity.

LENR discovery history

The first mention of the phenomenon of low-energy transmutation of chemical elements dates back to 1922. Chemists S. Irion and J. Wendt, examining tungsten samples in electrochemical experiments, registered the release of helium. This result was not accepted by the scientific community, including because E. Rutherford was not able to reproduce it.

In other words, in the very first work devoted to the problem of nuclear transformations at low energies, its authors S. Irion and J. Wendt stepped on the notorious "rake of irreproducibility", which later stumbled upon almost all scientists who tried to study this interesting phenomenon.

Moreover, the main criticism of numerous works on cold fusion is associated with the poor reproducibility of the results obtained by various enthusiasts who do not have a specific professional training of a nuclear experimenter.

At the same time, there are reliable experimental data obtained in the best scientific laboratories, irrefutably indicating that "forbidden" processes take place.

In this regard, we will quote the conclusions of Academician I.V. Kurchatov at a lecture he gave on April 25, 1956 at a landmark conference at the English atomic center in Harwell:

“Hard X-rays are generated by the passage of large currents through hydrogen, deuterium and helium. Radiation from discharges in deuterium always consists of short pulses.

The pulses caused by neutrons and X-ray quanta can be accurately phased in waveforms. It turns out that they appear simultaneously.

The energy of X-ray quanta appearing during pulsed electrical processes in hydrogen and deuterium reaches 300 - 400 keV. It should be noted that at the moment when quanta with such a high energy appear, the voltage applied to the discharge tube is only 10 kV. "

It was also pointed out that the observed reactions cannot be considered thermonuclear. This conclusion applies, first of all, to helium, in which the nuclear charge is twice as large as the proton charge, and it is impossible to overcome the Coulomb barrier in the energy range studied by Kurchatov's group.

Based on the work carried out under the direction of IV Kurchatov, the great film "Nine Days of One Year" was even shot. Physicist, prof. V.S.Strelkov, who performed experiments on a high-current electric discharge in gases, the results of which were reported in Harwell by Academician I. V. Kurchatov, in contrast to the movie hero Dmitry Gusev, who was brilliantly played in this film by Alexei Batalov, is still working at the Russian Research Center " Kurchatov Institute ".

Moreover, on November 25, 2013, a seminar "Experiments on tokamaks" was held on the topic "The TIN-AT project - a possible path to demo and hybrid reactors", the head of which is prof. V.S. Shooters.

Kurchatov's experimental data on nuclear reactions in a high-current electric discharge in helium agree with the data obtained by P.L. Kapitsa two years earlier. This is what Peter Leonidovich said in his Nobel lecture.

Thus, the experimental data obtained by the best physicists of the twentieth century clearly indicate the existence of hitherto unexplored mechanisms for neutralizing the electric charge of the lightest atomic nuclei in the low-energy region.

The heroic period of the formation of Soviet nuclear science was not without exploits in the field of LENR. Young, energetic and very talented physicist I.S. Filimonenko created a hydrolysis power plant designed to generate energy from the reactions of "warm" nuclear fusion, which take place at a temperature of only 1150 o C. Heavy water served as the fuel for the reactor.

The reactor was a metal tube 41 mm in diameter and 700 mm in length, made of an alloy containing several grams of palladium.

In 1962 I.S. Filimonenko filed an application for the invention "Process and installation of thermal emission". But the State Patent Examination refused to recognize the claimed technical solution as an invention on the grounds that thermonuclear reactions cannot proceed at such a low temperature.

Filimonenko experimentally established that after the decomposition of heavy water by electrolysis into oxygen and deuterium, which dissolves in the palladium of the cathode, nuclear fusion reactions take place in the cathode.

At the same time, there is no neutron radiation or radioactive waste. Filimonenko proposed the idea of \u200b\u200bexperiments back in 1957 while working in the defense industry.

The idea was accepted and supported by his direct leadership. It was decided to start research, and the first positive results were obtained in the shortest possible time.

Further biography of I.S. Filimonenko is the basis for writing dozens of adventure novels. During his long life, full of ups and downs, Filimonenko created several fully operational HNF reactors, but he never got through to the minds of the authorities. Most recently, on August 26, 2013, Ivan Stepanovich left us at the age of 89.

The ill-fated scandalous topic did not pass by the Academy of Sciences either. The effect of an anomalous increase in the neutron yield has been repeatedly observed in experiments on chopping deuterium ice.

In 1986, academician B.V. Deryagin and his co-workers published an article in which the results of a series of experiments on the destruction of heavy ice targets using a metal striker were presented. In this work, it was reported that when a shot at a target from heavy ice at an initial speed of the striker of more than 100 meters per second, neutrons were recorded.

The results of B.V. Deryagin lay near the corridor of errors, their reproduction was not easy, and the interpretation of the reaction mechanism was not entirely correct.

However, even with the correction for the "electrostatic" interpretation of the experiments of B.V. Deryagin and his collaborators, their work can be safely attributed to the most important decisive experiments confirming the very existence of low-energy nuclear reactions.

In other words, if we do not take into account the early work of S. Irion and J. Wendt, the results of which have never been reproduced by anyone, and the closed works of I.S. Filimonenko, then we can assume that cold nuclear fusion was officially discovered in Russia.

A feverish explosion of interest in the problem under discussion arose only after M. Fleischman and S. Pons, at a press conference on March 23, 1989, announced their discovery of a new phenomenon in science, now known as cold nuclear fusion or fusion at room temperature. They electrolytically saturated palladium with deuterium - they carried out electrolysis in heavy water with a palladium cathode.

In this case, the release of excess heat, the production of neutrons, and the formation of tritium were observed. In the same year, there was a report on similar results obtained in the work of S. Jones, E. Palmer, J. Zirr and others. Unfortunately, the results of M. Fleischman and S. Pons turned out to be poorly reproducible, and for many years they were rejected by academic science ...

However, not all experiments in which the CNF and LENR phenomena were studied are non-reproducible.

For example, there is no doubt about the reliability and reproducibility of the ones presented in the work of I.B. Savvatimova of the results of registration of residual radioactivity by the method of autoradiography of the surface of cathode foils made of palladium, titanium, niobium, silver and their combinations after irradiation with deuterium ions in a glow discharge.

The electrodes that had been in the glow discharge plasma became radioactive, although the voltage across them did not exceed 500 V.

The results of the work of the group of I.B. Savvatimova, performed in Podolsk at NPO Luch, were confirmed in independent experiments. They are easily reproducible, and unequivocally testify in favor of the existence of LENR and CNF processes. But the most remarkable thing in the experiments of I.B. Savvatimova, A.B. Karabuta and others is that they are among the decisive ones.

In the spring of 2008, Professor Emeritus Yosiaki Arata from Osaka University, and his Chinese colleague and constant colleague, Professor Yuechang Zhang from Shanghai University, presented a very beautiful experiment in the presence of numerous journalists.

In front of the amazed audience, the release of energy and the formation of helium, not provided for by the known laws of physics, was demonstrated.

These results were awarded the Imperial Prize "For invaluable contributions to science and technology", which in Japan is quoted above the Nobel Prize. These results were reproduced by A. Takahashi's group.

Unfortunately, all the arguments mentioned above were not enough to rehabilitate the undeservedly compromised topic.

Standard Objections of LENR and HYF Opponents

An ominous role in the fate of cold nuclear fusion was played by its discoverers M. Fleischman and S. Pons, who announced sensational results in violation of all the rules of scientific discussion.

The haste of conclusions and the almost complete lack of knowledge in the field of nuclear physics, demonstrated by the authors of the discovery, led to the fact that the subject of CNF was discredited and received the official status of pseudoscience in many, but not all, countries with large centers of nuclear research.

The standard objections faced by speakers who ventured to announce the results of seditious research at international conferences on nuclear physics usually begin with the question: "In which peer-reviewed scientific journals with a high citation index have reliable results that irrefutably prove the existence of the phenomenon under discussion are published?" Opponents usually reject references to the most solid research done at Osaka University.

The opponents' Jesuit logic lies far beyond scientific ethics, since an argument like "Published not there" cannot be classified as a worthy objection by a self-respecting expert. If you do not agree with the author, object to the point. Let me remind you that Robert Julius Mayer published a work in which the law of conservation of energy was formulated in a pharmaceutical journal. In our opinion, the most worthy response to the aforementioned group of opponents are dozens of papers published in authoritative scientific journals and reported at the most prestigious conferences.

Answers to other arguments of opponents of LENR and CNF are contained in hundreds of works funded by various industrial corporations, including such giants as Sony and Mitsubishi, etc.

The results of these studies, professionally performed and already brought to the market for certified and commercially profitable industrial products (A. Rossi reactors), continue to be denied by the scientific community, and the supporters of the persecuted scientific direction unconditionally accept on faith.

However, questions of faith lie outside the plane of science. Therefore, "official science" is seriously at risk of becoming one of the religions that mindlessly reject the thesis that practice is the criterion of truth.

However, academic science has very serious arguments for such a denial, since even the works listed above, in which there are no doubts about experimental data, are vulnerable to criticism, since none of the theories mentioned in them can stand criticism.

LENR and CNS problems and prospects for their solution

The hypothetical exotic neutrino atom "neutronium" is born as a result of the collision of a free electron with a hydrogen atom, and it decays into a proton and an electron. The possibility of the existence of neutrino atoms is associated with the fact that an electron and a proton are attracted not only due to the fact that both particles have an electric charge, but also due to the so-called weak interaction, due to which β-decay of nuclei of radioactive isotopes occurs.

In July 2012 A. Rossi was received by Barack Obama. As a result of this meeting, A. Rossi's project received the support of the President of the United States of America, and NASA allocated $ 5 billion for the continuation of work on cold nuclear fusion, which is being successfully developed.

In the USA, the LENR reactor has already been created, significantly superior in its characteristics to the experimental reactor A. Rossi. It was created by NASA specialists using advanced space technologies. The launch of this reactor took place in August 2013.

Currently, the Defkalion corporation operates in Greece, separated from the Leonardo company, founded by A. Rossi, operating in Italy and the USA. To date, 850 companies from 60 countries of the world have expressed their readiness to conclude a license agreement with Defkalion Corporation.

The global consequences of A. Rossi's work for Russia can be both positive and negative. Below are possible scenarios for the development of further events in the energy sector and globalistics.

It is obvious that the fate of the Russian economy and the country as a whole will largely depend on the timely and adequate response of the Russian authorities to the work on "cold fusion" being carried out in the USA, Germany and Italy.

Scenario 1, negative outlook. If Russia continues its policy of increasing gas and oil supplies, despite the new LENR and CNF technologies, Andrea Rossi, having a working prototype of an industrial reactor, will quickly organize its serial production at his plant in Florida.

The prime cost of thermal energy produced by this rector is tens of times lower than the prime cost of thermal energy obtained by burning hydrocarbons. America has been the world's largest gas producer for the third year in a row.

It should be noted that the United States produces mainly shale gas rather than natural gas. Using the free energy of cold nuclear fusion, America will start dumping gas and synthetic gasoline produced on the basis of the Fischer-Tropsch process or the "South African process" on the world market.

America is immediately joined by China, South Africa, Brazil and a number of other countries that traditionally produce a significant amount of synthetic fuel from various types of natural raw materials.

This will lead to an instant collapse of the oil and gas market with catastrophic economic and political consequences for Russia with its current resource-based economy.

Scenario 2, the forecast is positive. Russia is actively involved in studies of low-temperature nuclear reactions and will launch in the foreseeable future the production of radiation-safe LENR and CNF reactors of domestic design.

It should be noted that cold fusion reactors are sources of penetrating radiation, therefore, according to radiation safety standards, they cannot be used in transport until reliable means of protection against this type of radiation are created.

The point is that the LENR and CNF reactors emit "strange" radiation, which is recorded so far only in the form of specific tracks on special substrates. The effects of "strange" radiation on biological objects have not yet been studied, and researchers must exercise extreme caution when conducting experiments.

At the same time, LENR and HNF reactors of high power are explosive, and today no one knows how to regulate the rate of energy release in these monsters, and transmutologists carefully hide from politicians the list of human victims brought to the altar of "cold fusion".

However, humanity will have to overcome these and other obstacles to obtain cheap electricity, since the reserves of hydrocarbons on Earth are limited, and the accumulation of radioactive waste generated from the use of nuclear fuel in nuclear power plants is increasing.

It seems impossible to avoid a fall in world oil and gas prices in the current geopolitical situation, which is fraught with serious consequences for Russia.

However, if our scientists and engineers succeed in creating radiation-safe LENR and CNF reactors for the production of cheap electricity, then Russian industrialists will gradually succeed in capturing significant segments of the world markets for products that today require significant energy consumption for their production.

So, using cheap energy of cold nuclear fusion, Russia can capture a significant part of the market for plastics and plastic products, since their production is energy-intensive, and the price of plastic directly depends on the cost of heat and electrical energy.

Nuclear power plants based on LENR and CNF reactors will reduce the cost of metallurgical production, since the cost of one kWh in this case will decrease at least three times.

Gasification of coal and the production of cheap synthetic gasoline from coal using cheap electricity generated by nuclear power plants based on CNF reactors will allow Russia to expand the production and sale of synthetic hydrocarbon energy carriers.

Modernization of nuclear energy, and an increase in the released share of oil and natural gas, will allow expanding the volume of production of oil and gas chemistry products. A smooth and controlled redistribution of world hydrocarbon markets will allow Russia to gain significant competitive advantages over OPEC countries and strengthen its position in the world.

The impact of radiation from cold fusion reactors makes it possible to reduce the “lifetime” of nuclear waste recovered from spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants by tens of times.

This phenomenon was discovered by I.S. Filimonenko and experimentally confirmed at the Siberian Chemical Combine by the now deceased V.N. Shadrin, who in the late 1990s investigated the mechanisms of decontamination of radioactive waste.

Using these developments, Russia can completely seize the NPP market by erecting cold fusion reactors on the territory of existing plants, which will not only generate energy instead of decommissioned power units, but also deactivate radioactive waste on the NPP territory, while almost completely eliminating environmental risks. associated with their transportation.

Without exception, all researchers of the CNF problem, including full members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who are not members of the Commission on Pseudoscience under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, unanimously assert that cold nuclear fusion is an objective reality.

At present, weapons applications of the topic under discussion are being developed in large nuclear centers in the United States and other industrialized countries. The civilian aspects of the use of CNF are being investigated at the Tomsk Atomic Center and at the Siberian Chemical Combine in accordance with the approved research programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In addition to the above, other areas of application of CNS and LENR are also seen: medicine (radiation therapy and the production of isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer), biology (radiation genetic engineering), long-term aerospace monitoring of forests, oil pipelines, gas pipelines and other engineering structures using unmanned aircraft with a nuclear reactor.

If all the listed features and advantages of the new nuclear energy are used in a businesslike manner, then Russia, in the foreseeable future, can take a leading position in the world economy. A significant increase in the power supply of Russia will strengthen its defense potential and increase its influence on the world political arena.

"Atomic project-2"

One of the reasons why most of the scientific community is cool about the problem under discussion is the overly optimistic assessment of the possibility of providing humanity with free energy, which is present in the works of numerous inventors of cold fusion reactors.

Unfortunately, promises of quick, easy, and most importantly, cheap success look tempting only in projects or business plans.

In order for LENR energy to really fulfill its historical mission and save humanity in the future from thirst and hunger, cold and heat, it is necessary to solve a number of important tasks related to the fact that there are many obstacles. Let's list some of them.

The CNF theory, as noted, is still in its infancy.

This review contains only selected extracts from the works of one of the authors of this publication, Professor Yu.L. Ratis. And although the qualitative picture of LENR and CNF is already quite clear, it is still a long way to the creation of working methods for the design and turnkey construction of the corresponding reactors.

The available prototypes of reactors, as a rule, are demonstration ones, for the most part, except for the A. Rossi reactor, have a relatively low power.

Enthusiasts created them either in the hope of receiving the Nobel Prize for their discovery, or to receive investment resources to continue the work. Except for the A. Rossi reactor, reactions in CNF reactors run uncontrollably, since the majority of developers are simply not familiar with either quantum theory or nuclear physics, and without this knowledge it is impossible to create an effective reactor control system.

On the basis of the existing experience in creating miniature uncontrolled low-power CNF reactors, it is in principle impossible to design a controlled fusion power reactor suitable for generating thermal and electric energy on an industrial scale.

However, there is reasonable hope that these obstacles will be overcome within one to two decades. Indeed, in the Soviet Union, LENR reactors operated back in 1958, and our scientists developed a theory of the corresponding processes based on the well-known laws of physics.

To implement, relatively speaking, the "Atomic Project-2", it is necessary to prepare a package of proposals, which should contain a feasibility study and defense of the project, including:

and) a list of developed structures and technologies for civil, military and dual-use;

b) a description of the geography of the project with the obligatory justification of the location of at least one test site, taking into account the fact that at the early stages of the research of the nuclear nuclear power plant (the end of the 1950s) the explosion power at the nuclear power plant with a capacity of 6 MW was 1.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent;

in) an approximate estimate of the project and the stages of the development of allocated budgetary, off-budget and third-party funds raised;

d) a list of infrastructure facilities and equipment necessary for the creation of the first experimental installations and measuring instruments required for recording low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) occurring in CNF reactors, as well as for controlling LENR processes;

e) project management scheme;

e) a list of possible problems associated with the implementation of the "Atomic Project-2", not included in this article.

All technological breakthroughs in the history of our country began with copying the corresponding European or American developments. Peter the Great "opened a window to Europe" by creating the army, navy and industry needed to equip and modernize them. The nuclear and rocket and space industries in the Soviet Union began with copying the "products" of the Manhattan Project and the development of Wernher von Braun.

Power engineering LENR was born in Russia half a century ago, when no one in the West even dared to dream of such technologies. The announcement of LENR and KNF as pseudoscience has led to the fact that "foreign" competitors have already overtaken Russia in the most strategically important direction for ensuring its state security - energy security.

The time has come to ring the bells and gather under the banner of the Atomic Project-2 those few Russian nuclear scientists who are still able to work productively. But for this, the country's leadership will need to show political will. It will be a sin if we miss the last chance.

A. A. Prosvirnov,

engineer, Moscow

Yu. L. Ratis,

d. f-m. D., professor, Samara

Nuclear energy myths and the actual state of affairs
Vladimir Slivyak, 02 / 09-2010

In the world of "nuclear renaissance" - nuclear power plants are being built around the world

The discussion about the possible construction of a nuclear power plant is really going on in different countries, but this is more a "renaissance of the discussion" than a "renaissance of nuclear energy". In Germany, the law on the decommissioning of all nuclear power plants is still in force, in Spain the government's policy is towards a "soft" rejection of nuclear energy, in Austria and Denmark, governments have not taken the "nuclear issue" seriously for over 30 years. In the United States, there have been no orders for the construction of new reactors since 1973 due to the reluctance of investors to invest at high risk. Even in Italy, where after 22 years of the anti-nuclear moratorium, the government again started talking about nuclear power plants, there is not a single nuclear power plant project under construction. One reactor is under construction in Finland, but it will only replace the decommissioned power. Even France, where up to 80% of energy is produced at nuclear power plants, will not be able to increase or maintain such a high share of the “peaceful atom” in the energy balance. A long hiatus in the construction of a nuclear power plant in this country has led to the fact that with the decommissioning of old reactors, which will begin in the coming years, the percentage of nuclear power generation will steadily decrease. Thus, it is also impossible to talk about any development of nuclear energy in France. Only in the South-East Asia region there are still plans for large-scale nuclear development, but progress there directly depends on investments and the situation in the markets of developed countries in deep crisis. The previous “nuclear boom” in Asia was halted by the 1998 international financial crisis, and the recent revival of interest in nuclear technology has stumbled upon the current financial crisis.

Russia makes money on the construction of nuclear power plants abroad
The modern "market" for NPP construction depends not on the ability of the ordering country to pay the costs, but on the contrary, on the ability of the developer company to attract export loans and private investments from different countries for its project. Thus, countries that do not have the financial means to build nuclear power plants can get nuclear power plants on loan. In some cases, poor countries pay in part in goods. The point of participation in such projects for the nuclear industry is not to earn money for themselves or the budget of their country, but to load industrial capacities. This capacity utilization is paid, as a rule, from the budget of the country where the NPP builders are based. Rosatom's foreign projects for the construction of nuclear power plants are often financed from the Russian budget. In the case of the nuclear power plant project in Turkey, Rosatom will build 4 nuclear reactors using loans taken under the guarantees of the Russian government, and then own the plant and sell energy from it at a fixed low price to the Turkish authorities. One reactor at a Turkish nuclear power plant will cost Russian taxpayers approximately $ 7.7 billion, including bank interest on loans. These are the most expensive reactors in the history of Russia, and their payback period will directly depend on the desire of the Turkish authorities to buy the agreed amount of energy. The previously built Russian gas pipeline to Turkey is operating at half of its capacity due to the fact that local authorities do not fulfill their obligations regarding the volume of purchased gas.

The cost of a nuclear power plant is comparable to other energy sources
Today, the capital costs of building a nuclear power plant exceed those for any other energy source, with the exception of some renewable energy sources. However, while in the case of nuclear power plants, new and more expensive safety systems cause a constant increase in capital costs, then in the case of renewable sources, there is a decrease in cost. If ten years ago the construction of one reactor in Russia cost an average of $ 1 billion, then today's power units (such as VVER-1200) cost from 3-5 billion euros. Infrastructure costs are not included here, although in some cases they can increase the project cost by another 50%. For example, in the case of the Baltic NPP, two units cost about 6 billion euros, and taking into account the infrastructure, more than 9 billion euros. At the same time, the project cost almost never corresponds to the final cost, taking into account the delays. Modern reactors in the West are more technologically advanced and therefore even more expensive. The projects of new nuclear power plants currently being discussed in the United States reach $ 10 billion per unit. At the same time, wind farm projects are already cheaper. And even the once extremely expensive solar energy can compete with new projects in the nuclear field. So, in the case of a floating nuclear power plant, the cost of one kW of installed capacity is about $ 7000, which is equal to the cost of a kW of installed capacity at a small solar station, which is planned to be built near Kislovodsk in 2011. At the same time, the solar station will provide heat and electricity to the area under construction in the city completely, people in this area will be able to breathe clean air and not be afraid of dangerous accidents.

Nuclear power plants generate the cheapest energy
The price of energy in Russia does not equal the price of its production costs. Thus, the price of atomic energy does not include the costs of radioactive waste management for the entire time that they remain hazardous. Also excluded are the costs of dismantling nuclear reactors that must be decommissioned at the end of their service life. In any case, the taxpayer pays these costs, but through different items of the state budget, which does not allow calculating the real cost of energy produced by nuclear power plants. Obviously, the real cost of nuclear energy is much higher than any other energy source due to the fact that nuclear power alone produces waste that must be safely stored for at least 240,000 years. In addition, according to Russian nuclear industry officials, the cost of dismantling the reactor is at least equal to the cost of construction.

There is no alternative to the development of nuclear energy in Russia
At the moment, nuclear power generates about 16% of Russian electricity. Today it is already possible to decommission all nuclear power plants, replacing the "peaceful atom" with natural gas, which will be safer and cheaper. In addition, Russia is perhaps the only large country that does not develop renewable energy sources, although their potential is very large. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable energy can provide up to 30% of the amount of energy that is generated in Russia today. Another source is energy efficiency and energy savings. According to the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation, the potential in this area is over 50%. This means that by implementing basic energy efficiency measures, half of the energy used today can be saved. Obviously, there is no shortage of energy sources at the moment and nuclear energy is not irreplaceable.

Renewable energy sources are too expensive and not suitable for Russia
In the past, renewable energy sources were indeed so expensive that there was no economic sense in using them. However, in recent years, in different countries, the volume of investments in this area has grown many times, as a result of which there has been a reduction in the cost of technologies associated with obtaining energy from renewable sources. According to preliminary estimates of experts, in the Elbrus region the solar station would pay for itself in 5 years, and in Kislovodsk in 7 years. For comparison, the payback period for nuclear power plants can reach 20 years. Despite the fact that the development of renewable energy sources is not supported by the government, such energy sources are already actively used in Russia. Several small solar stations are planned to be built in the southern regions of Russia. In Kaliningrad, far from the sunniest city in Russia, the municipality is equipping new social housing with solar heating devices. A large wind farm is under construction in the Murmansk region. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be used not only in areas where there are a lot of sunny days or extremely strong winds, but almost everywhere, provided that a combination of different technologies occurs. Provided that state aid was received in the amount in which it has been provided to the civil nuclear industry for half a century, renewable energy plants would have become the cheapest for a long time, and Russia would have been at the forefront of technological development. However, not even a thousandth of what is spent on the needs of nuclear energy is allocated for renewable energy sources. At the same time, the nuclear industry recently launched the first floating nuclear power plant, which cost the taxpayer about $ 7,000 per kW of installed capacity. The solar station in Kislovodsk, the cost of which is close to a floating nuclear power plant, does not require nuclear or any other fuel, cannot explode, polluting everything around with radiation, does not pollute the atmosphere with radioactive aerosols or other harmful emissions in an accident-free mode, and besides, it is not needed guard by warships. Despite these advantages, funds for this station have been sought for many years and only now there is hope for its construction in 2011.

NPPs can be built quickly and in large numbers
In Russia today there is a technical capability to produce one set of reactor equipment per year. Unfortunately for Rosatom, foreign machine-building facilities are busy. Considering the technically feasible pace of construction of new nuclear power plants, resources are sufficient, at best, to replace old nuclear reactors that need to be disabled due to the end of their extended service life. If we take into account the large-scale ambitions for the construction of new nuclear power plants in other countries, then it is unlikely that in the next 20 years it will be possible to keep the share of nuclear energy at the same level (16% of the amount of electricity generated in the country). Thus, in the case of Russia, there is no reason to speak of a possible "nuclear renaissance", implying an increase in the share of nuclear energy: it will be extremely difficult for Rosatom even to maintain the current state of affairs and prevent a decrease in the share of nuclear energy in the country's energy balance by 2020.

Nuclear power plants can withstand a crash of a passenger plane
According to the chief engineer of the Baltic NPP project, delivered at the Rosatom roundtable in Kaliningrad in July 2009, the crash of a large passenger plane in the case of the VVER-1200 reactor has never been simulated. The calculation was made for the case of the crash of a small aircraft, up to 20 tons in size, for a previous generation reactor (VVER-1000). Nevertheless, an international air corridor passes over the construction site of this nuclear power plant, and aircraft flying over the construction site are several times heavier than a small passenger aircraft. In addition, large aircraft are also flying near the construction site of the Leningrad NPP-2 with VVER-1200 under construction, but this did not encourage the nuclear industry to carry out the necessary research.

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is not nuclear waste, but energy raw material
In accordance with Russian legislation, radioactive materials for which no further use is foreseen can be considered waste. Consequently, SNF from RBMK reactors (11 units out of 31 in Russia) is nuclear waste, since there are no plans for further use for this fuel, and there is no economically justified reprocessing technology ready for industrial use. The absence in Russia of facilities for the reprocessing of spent fuel from VVER-1000 power units also indicates that at the moment the use of this type of highly radioactive waste is impossible. If we restrict ourselves to civil nuclear power plants, SNF reprocessing is possible only for fuel with VVER-440 reactors (6 power units in Russia) and BN-600 (1 power unit). Thus, the used fuel from 24 out of 31 power units cannot be considered a raw material and is nuclear waste. Moreover, SNF reprocessing is carried out at the only Russian enterprise, the Mayak Combine in the Chelyabinsk Region, whose equipment is characterized by a high degree of wear. As a result of reprocessing, plutonium is released, and the amount of radioactive waste is radically increased - for 1 ton of spent nuclear fuel after reprocessing, there are 150-200 tonnes of incidental radioactive waste. Thus, SNF reprocessing cannot be considered an effective approach to reducing the amount of nuclear waste. Despite all the problems with spent nuclear fuel, Rosatom continues to import nuclear waste from abroad. In 2009, 57 tons of spent nuclear fuel were imported to Russia from the Bulgarian NPP Kozloduy.

Uranium "tails" - do not pose any danger
This extremely toxic and radioactive material has been exported to Russia from Western European uranium enrichment plants since 1996. Only the German-Dutch-British company Urenco sent over 120,000 tons of tailings to 4 Russian enterprises during this period. During the same period, "tails" came from France, in the total amount of several tens of thousands of tons. At the moment, it remains unclear whether French transportation will continue, since the contract is valid until 2014. As for Urenco, under pressure from environmental organizations, it announced the termination of this activity at the end of last year. According to Rostekhnadzor, containers with uranium "tails" are subject to corrosion. There is a “leakage risk” for these containers. According to the nuclear industry, if the contents of only one container are released into the environment, the risk of death for humans could arise within a radius of more than 30 km. (Price, BNFL, 1978)

Nuclear power can solve the problem of climate change
Studies clearly demonstrate that in a nuclear fuel cycle, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted is approximately equal to the amount of emissions in a cycle with a modern gas station. (Oekoinstitut, 1997) Moreover, in order to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to nuclear energy, it is necessary to build several times more nuclear reactors than have been built in the entire history of human development of this type of energy. With limited time and financial resources, nuclear power is the least effective way to combat climate change and is seriously inferior in this indicator to renewable energy sources.

Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and does not do any harm to the environment
Each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle generates a large amount of radioactive waste. This far from complete list includes millions of tons of dumps at uranium mining sites in the former USSR, hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium "tails" at Russian uranium enrichment enterprises, over 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel generated at nuclear power plants in Russia. In most cases, the problem with radioactive waste is not solved due to too much waste and the need for a large investment that will never pay off. However, there are also such wastes for which there is still no reliable technology to isolate them from people and the environment. In particular, there is no economically viable technology to isolate spent nuclear fuel for the entire time it remains hazardous. This period will be at least 240,000 years. The most advanced project in this area is considered the project of the spent fuel repository in Yucca Mountain (USA), which is designed to store nuclear waste for 1 million years. However, due to the high price (over $ 90 billion) and insufficient scientific substantiation of the safety of SNF storage, the project has been stopped at the moment. In addition, it should be noted that even in a trouble-free operation mode, nuclear power plants constantly emit radioactive substances into the environment.

The population of Russia is not against the development of nuclear energy
A poll conducted at the end of 2007 by ROMIR revealed that 79% of Russians have a negative attitude to the construction of nuclear power plants if it took place in their region. Less than 10% are in favor of building a nuclear power plant in their own region. Nevertheless, the nuclear industry often needs confirmation of the false thesis about public support for new NPP projects. For this, various methods of manipulation have been invented. For example, in 2007 in the Kaliningrad region, environmentalists organized a public opinion poll, which showed that 67% of residents have a negative attitude to the construction of nuclear power plants. In 2008, representatives of the nuclear industry organized a survey, in which Kaliningraders were asked to choose one of several options for the development of energy in the region. At the same time, supporters of nuclear energy could choose only one option, while for the rest several options were formulated. As a result, 67% of opponents of nuclear power plant construction were divided into several groups, each of which, individually, turned out to be smaller than the pro-nuclear one. The picture as a whole remained the same, because the majority of the population opposed the construction of a nuclear power plant, but in the figures of this survey it turned out that the majority (less than 30%) are for the nuclear power plant. On other nuclear issues, Russians have an even more unpleasant opinion for Rosatom. Over 90% of Russian citizens oppose the import of radioactive waste from abroad, and in some regions this figure reaches 100% (Primorsky Krai). As a rule, the opinion of Russians does not depend on whether their region is used for transit or for final storage of foreign radioactive waste. When asked how their residents see the energy future of Russia, more than 70% answered that development should take place at the expense of renewable energy sources. The least popular are coal and nuclear power.

("Eco-protection!", September 2010)

Over the next 50 years, humanity will consume more energy than was consumed in all previous history. Earlier forecasts of the growth rate of energy consumption and the development of new energy technologies did not come true: the level of consumption is growing much faster, and new energy sources will start working on an industrial scale and at competitive prices no earlier than 2030. The problem of the lack of fossil energy resources is becoming more and more acute. The possibilities for the construction of 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 (TPP).

The solution to the problem can be the active development of nuclear power, one of the youngest and fastest growing sectors of the global economy. An increasing number of countries today are coming to the need to start developing the peaceful atom.

What are the benefits of nuclear power?

Huge energy intensity

1 kilogram of uranium enriched up to 4%, used in nuclear fuel, when completely burned up, releases energy equivalent to burning about 100 tons of high-quality coal or 60 tons of oil.

Reuse

Fissile material (uranium-235) does not completely burn out in nuclear fuel and can be used again after regeneration (in contrast to ash and organic fuel slags). In the future, a complete transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible, which means a complete absence of waste.

Reducing the greenhouse effect

The intensive development of nuclear power can be considered one of the means of combating global warming. Every year nuclear power plants in Europe avoid the emission of 700 million tons of CO2, and in Japan - 270 million tons of CO2. Operating nuclear power plants in Russia annually prevent the emission of 210 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this indicator, Russia is in fourth place in the world.

Economic development

The construction of a nuclear power plant ensures economic growth, the emergence of new jobs: 1 job during the construction of a nuclear power plant creates more than 10 jobs in related industries. The development of nuclear energy contributes to the growth of scientific research and the intellectual potential of the country.

Interactive application "Comparison of power generation sources"

“For example, you want to increase the energy capacity of your country. What source of electricity generation should you choose? Let's compare coal, hydroelectric, wind and solar, and identify the main advantages of nuclear power. Launch the application and determine the optimal energy source for construction. "

Play a video demonstrating the key features of the Power Generation Comparison interactive application:

To work with the application:
1. Download the app from the link below.
2. Find the executable file "ros-atom.exe" on your computer using the file manager and run it.
3. To display the image correctly, set the screen extension to 1920 x 1080.
4. Click "Play!" to run the application.

Important! For the application to work correctly, please use a computer based on an i7 processor, with a Windows 7 or 10x64 operating system, at least 8 Gb RAM, a GTX77 video card and a 128 Gb SSD.