Dr Alexander Bychkov was formerly Deputy Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 2011-2015. Now a private consultant, he recently spoke to NEI to give his opinion about some recent developments in the global nuclear sector.
Q: How do you see the growing interest in small modular reactors and advanced reactors and the proliferation of new designs in these sectors?
A: I think we can distinguish two clear tendencies. One focuses on small reactors, so-called SMRs, and the other on a revival of previously tested reactor technologies and their application for Generation IV reactors. There is a lot of discussion about molten salt reactors (MSRs), while China has made progress in developing high temperature reactors (HTRs). This is in addition to the more classical approach – SMRs based on water cooled reactors. But it is important to underline that now there are a large number of SMR designs and I’m not so sure that this is our future when it comes to energy production.
Maybe from the political point of view it could be considered the next step but, from a practical point of view, I think that the legal and regulatory system of the ‘nuclear world’ cannot accept so many reactors. There are a lot of challenges such as licensing, waste, spent fuel management, nuclear security, safeguards etc. However, it may be possible to solve these problems if IAEA member states make a joint effort. And the current initiative of IAEA Director General Mr Rafael Grossi – the Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative – is an important illustration of these efforts.
Q: Many of these new reactor designs are targeting 2030 for deployment of their first reactor. Is this practical?
A: I don’t think companies will be able to deploy new design reactors by then. Of course, it is a good sign that small businesses and venture companies are making efforts in this area. However, my long-term experience in the nuclear industry shows that, without government support, it is not possible to establish long-term development. This does not necessarily mean just providing the required funding, but involves support and some kind of prioritisation for promoting nuclear technology. Without this government backing, long-term development will be difficult.
Maybe some small examples such as transportable NPPs or some other things could be organised by some vendor companies. However, they will have very strong competition from big vendors such as Rosatom, Chinese companies and maybe, in future, also some big American companies. But this is not an easy discussion. It’s necessary to consider each case separately, taking into account a lot of factors.
Q: How do you see the interest now being shown in nuclear by a number of African countries?
A: I strongly believe that nuclear power can help to promote technological development in other industries, but we have to be realistic. On the one hand, if countries have a nuclear power plant, in addition to electricity production a nuclear power programme will bring a new level of education and technical culture. Maybe my example is not ideal, but whereas a coal power plant needs a few experienced engineers – 10-20 people – but for nuclear power plant operation you need up to 100 engineers.
On the other hand, some African countries do not enjoy a stable political situation and another very important point is the level of security required. For a nuclear plant you need a much stronger security system and also a number of important additional efforts by the government. In my opinion it is an important trend that nuclear power will bring a new level of technological, safety and security culture. Today we, as a nuclear community, have a clear picture of nuclear power in Asia. We have a clear picture of the situation in Europe. But Africa is a future challenge.
Q: A number of Eastern European countries have ambitious programmes for the deployment of SMRs. How do you view this development?
A: I don’t know about the future success of SMRs in Europe because the region has a very good established power grid and small reactors in this case can be considered an important part of the energy mix only in the case of limited finance. For small reactors you need less money than for large reactors but, on the other hand, the cost per kilowatt will be higher in the initial stages.
Of course, if a country wishes to have some independence in its electricity system, it’s important. But I think this is mainly a political decision. Nuclear power has a longer life than any government or political party. A lot of nuclear plants were constructed in the 1970s and are still operating – and their operating lives are being extended. But SMRs may have a niche. High temperature reactors can bring a new quality of energy for some industrial uses, not just for electricity production. Maybe in future also molten salt reactors may also offer some efficiencies. But because MSRs have an integrated fuel cycle some countries will have restrictions related to the recycling aspect of MSRs, which may be considered sensitive.
Q: What about fast reactors?
A: My background is in the fast reactor fuel cycle and I believe that they are seeing a revival, not only for electricity production where they are already a well-established technology. Historically there were some technical problems in Japan, some political issues in France, and also some political problems in Germany. But currently there is fast reactor experience in Russia and China and some steps have been taken in India.
Fast reactors can, and will, bring a new quality to the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a developed technology for the recycling of nuclear materials, for the reduction, if necessary, of stockpiles of civil plutonium. As of 31 December 2022, the total amount of civilian plutonium declared to the IAEA was around 370 tonnes. The UK, France, Russia, China, Japan all have very big stockpiles. Both Russia and China are going to use fast reactors for the recycling of plutonium and transmutation of minor actinides to improve long term environmental safety. Discussion on fast reactors is also continuing at the international level. The IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) has some collaborative studies/ projects.
Maybe in future, molten salt reactors may be considered preferable for transmutation because there are not so many reprocessing steps involved. Each step in recycling and reprocessing produces some waste and this will contain traces or small amounts of minor actinides. But this is for the future. Currently, fast reactors are being used for transmutation.
I’m not saying that fast reactors are the absolute solution but I can say there is a real revival of this technology. Systems are being optimised and fast reactors will soon meet the criteria of Generation IV reactors. Currently we can say that we have fast reactors with Generation IV knowledge but maybe tomorrow we will have Generation IV reactors.
Q: What about lead-cooled fast reactors?
A: The nuclear community is expecting some results from a plant under construction as part of Russia’s PRORYV (Breakthrough) project. Theoretically it is an interesting system but we need to see real results. The lead-cooled BREST-OD-300 fast reactor is set for operation in 2029. It is part of a pilot demonstration power complex, which is being developed under the PRORYV project to demonstrate closed fuel cycle technology on-site. The project has a very strong team and there are a lot of people involved.
This concept of an on-site fuel cycle using fast reactors has already been partially demonstrated using the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II at in the Argonne National Laboratory in the USA, which closed in 1994, and at the BOR-60 reactor operating at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, Russia. But it has not been realised on an industrial scale until now. The BREST energy system will also include the recycling and re-use of mixed uranium-plutonium nitride fuel.
More “traditional” mox (mixed uranium-plutonium oxide) fuel is also produced in a separate facility in Russia, which uses stockpiled plutonium to produce fuel for the sodium-cooled BN-800 fast reactor at the Beloyarsk NPP. Taking into account the current nuclear industry landscape with its extensive, well-developed system for the production of fuel and availability of uranium resources, it is not yet necessary to make immediate efforts to establish a closed fuel cycle based on fast reactors. However, with PRORYV we will see a new scale of demonstration.
Q: Is nuclear power the answer to climate change?
A: Nuclear is one of the instruments for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I can say only that, as yet, we [the nuclear community] do not have a mechanism for enhanced deployment of nuclear power reactors to solve climate problems. Today we have a lot of discussions. We have a number of good solutions, but I do not see concrete steps. It’s a very important activity of the IAEA, but we need to wake up industry.
A few states have small construction programmes and some newcomers provide good examples. But statistically we have no major nuclear efforts now. At present around 60 power reactors are under construction worldwide, more than half of which are in China. Rosatom is constructing four units in Russia and others in Turkiye [4 units], Bangladesh [2 units] and Egypt [4 units]. India is building seven units. Apart from these efforts not much is happening. Of course, this could change, but I stress the point I made earlier about the need for governmental support and long-term support.
