BREST Fast Neutron Reactor

Full title is: BREST Fast Neutron Reactor: Russia Offers a New Nuclear Paradigm for Sustainable Development... Interesting article that if true can help with the nuclear waste problem.

Rosatom's newly inaugurated nuclear energy complex with a BREST-OD-300 fast neutron reactor may become a breakthrough providing relatively inexpensive, safe, carbon-free, and nearly inexhaustible nuclear power as energy consumption is set to dramatically soar in the coming decades.

Rosatom's project "Breakthrough" is aimed at developing a new nuclear technology platform based on a closed nuclear fuel cycle (CNFC) with advanced fast neutron nuclear reactors. Fast reactors are touted for their ability to increase energy yields from natural uranium and utilize nuclear byproducts and spent fuel. This would allow nuclear power programmes to be extended for thousands of years, while at the same time solving the radioactive waste problem. Thus, it is hardly surprising that major nuclear countries, such as China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the US have been developing fast neutron reactors as breeders and high-level waste burners.

sputniknews.com...

Very interesting. I am all for them burning down the nuclear waste to make it way less of a problem for our future generations.

This is a positive development. Similar in concept to the small modular reactor that Bill Gates is building in Wyoming:

trib.com... 241a3.html

It looks like the Russians are able to use a more advanced fuel cycle, however. That should lead to a more complete burn up of the fuels and radioactive wastes. a reply to: 727Sky

a reply to: 727Sky

This is great news for providing the stable baseload to the grid. Now we need energy buffers! So additional to the stable, crucial base load, we can fill the rest of the demand with renewable resources and store the overproduced energy for peak shaping. Then as we see where we are on the load map after some time, we can further reduce the nuclear output to even save more and do more inspection cycles. Shutdown all unnecessary reactors and this is until we reach fusion level, the best solution.

a reply to: 727Sky


Carbon was never the problem no matter how they sell it to get those carbon point's scam's going, the carbon cycle IS the problem, as long as we cut down forests in an unsustainable fashion, as long as we keep pumping chemical fertilizers and pesticides into our water tables were they end up reaching the sea killing the single largest (and smallest as it is the tiny creatures that are killed first by those chemical's) carbon sink on the planet.

Basically we can burn Coal as much as we want as long as nature is healthy and can absorb it, all it then does is make the tree's grow a bit faster etc.

So cutting out CO2 is not the answer and never was, healing the other parts of the Eco System is, also we are in between glacial maximums and it was actually warmer in the past, many times and often there were NO permanent ice caps at the poles, we are actually living in a period known as the Quaternary Glaciation.

Several times it has been hotter over the past few million years that it is today, before the quaternary began it was much warmer, in fact we are overdue for the next glacial cycle and it was at it's hottest in the past before each new glaciation period began (We erroneously call these glaciations Ice Ages but in fact we are in an Ice Age the QUATERNARY Glaciation).

Fearing global warming and thinking we will turn into Venus just wont happen - yet - oh it probably will in about a billion and a half years or so as the sun warm's up, ages and then the last two or three billions years before the sun starts to swell may very well see the earth long since a clone of Venus through natural processes (or some future intelligent beings may find a solution to there problem such as putting up arrays of solar reflectors in orbit to reflect heat from the sun back out into space (far more ethical and practical than spraying our atmosphere with chemicals).

So interesting but it sidesteps the real issue which anti carbon folk's have hoodwinked themselves out of seeing, they should go and plant some tree's, stop peat bog's from drying out and just accept that the planet warms and cool's and it is warming now before it cool's again which will first of all see a massive spike in CO2 before the next glacial maximum as the warming will trigger a release from the permafrost, this in a healthy system would be absorbed by the carbon cycle, spark massive plant growth and that would cause in turn a cooling affect.

I see them as anti humanists, get people to think they are the problem then you can cull them without too many fighting back, like selling a suicide machine to the heaven's gate cult.

But if this reduces nuclear waste, great, saves burying it in huge underground vaults that will one day breach, happened over here in Scotland back in the 50's or 60's, they put barrels of toxic chemical's, poison gas AND nuclear waste into an old mine that ran under part of the sea then sealed it off, a few years of a decade or so later what happens, some kind of underground explosion as these things' reacted with one another and then radioactive material was washing ashore, of course we also had our own four mile island stroke Chernobyl's in Scotland and in Cumbria that also poisoned the waters for decades around them and God only knows what they released into the atmosphere (not perhaps as bad as what happened in the Ukraine, Japan or New York but pretty bad, actually it was probably every bit as bad as what happened in New York and just maybe even worse but we have the official secrets act over here so it was pushed under the rug, wondered why my feet felt warm.

a reply to: 727Sky

We will have nuclear for a while but coal is dead. Maybe charcoal for grills and cooking (ask Hank Hill!).

Like any technology, variations are welcome as long as they deliver on how they are sold. So if Russia ends up with monster rockets and the ability to pull off Krushchev’s threat t bury us then we know it is a lie. But this not even the first fast reactor.

Has anyone been following the news?!!!

Anyway, this huge infrastructure to create. The pay off will be fine but the end use is debatable. (Fanboy: Fusion is the safer bet. But any nuclear tech can be weapoized. But as far as power from a nuclear source, any form of fusion is preferable).

Too much carbon in the atmosphere for “more plants” to work so stop repeating that lie!