3 ms·

> won't be making a contribution to the grid for a decade Or ever. Breeder reactors aren't a new idea. The concept has been around half a century, and they wer

> won't be making a contribution to the grid for a decade Or ever. Breeder reactors aren't a new idea. The concept has been around half a century, and they were put in commercial use 35 years ago. Thus far with enormous cost overruns and spectacularly bad uptime. It's good that we research these things, but we shouldn't base our energy infrastructure on things which aren't commercially available for good reasons. It's sad for everyone that energy infrastructure turned out to be a really, really hard problem, but wishful thinking doesn't make it go away.

PaulHoule 4y ago
EBR II, FFTF and some Russian reactors have a very good record for reliability. Moju, Superphenix, not so much.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  We do not know the reliability records for Russian reactors. We mostly know just what they tell us.
narrator 4y ago
Somehow, the Russians got breeder reactors to work. They have two currently running and are planning a new 1200 GW one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-Reactor
- xorcist 4y ago
  There is nothing to suggest these reactors technically can't be built, but that the upsides are heavily outweighed by the increased cost and reliability issues. We have several decades of empirical data to suggest this. A regime that has other basis of considerations can of course do what they want.
- philipkglass 4y ago
  The current plan is to have a BN-1200 built by 2035: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold", and Rosenergoatom stated that no decision to continue would be made before 2019. In January 2022, Rosatom announced that a pilot BN-1200M would be built by 2035. The BN-800 reactor connected to the grid in 2015. That's a gap of 20 years between building more BN-series reactors. Meanwhile Russia has completed 6 conventional pressurized water reactors in the last 5 years: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=RU https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... I think it's fair to say that breeders are still too expensive and complicated to compete with conventional reactors. The money saved on fuel is just not enough to justify the extra complications considering how inexpensive uranium remains.
nine_k 4y ago
I thought that the main problem with the breeder reactor design is the proliferation risk, because they also produce (and can burn) plutonium usable for building a bomb. I frankly think that these considerations are exaggerated in countries which already have nuclear bombs (like USA, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel,..). Japan does not have a nuclear arsenal, but, frankly, a normal nuclear power plant can also produce plutonium, maybe only somehow more visibly, so Japan might have built nuclear warheads on a year or so, had they decided to do so (and violate their Constitution).
- panick21_ 4y ago
  No the problem was that 'proliferation risk' was used by the enemies of nuclear to oppose all these programs and get them canceled. Even when the main use of those reactors would have been to consume the nuclear waste from the existing PWR reactors demostically. But sure lets kill a great program to build next generation reactors and solve the 'nuclear waste' 'problem' by preventing that. Just another one of the many ways the public opposition to nuclear has prevented all the progress.

PaulHoule 4y ago

EBR II, FFTF and some Russian reactors have a very good record for reliability. Moju, Superphenix, not so much.

moloch-hai 4y ago
We do not know the reliability records for Russian reactors. We mostly know just what they tell us.

narrator 4y ago

Somehow, the Russians got breeder reactors to work. They have two currently running and are planning a new 1200 GW one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-Reactor

xorcist 4y ago
There is nothing to suggest these reactors technically can't be built, but that the upsides are heavily outweighed by the increased cost and reliability issues. We have several decades of empirical data to suggest this. A regime that has other basis of considerations can of course do what they want.
philipkglass 4y ago
The current plan is to have a BN-1200 built by 2035: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold", and Rosenergoatom stated that no decision to continue would be made before 2019. In January 2022, Rosatom announced that a pilot BN-1200M would be built by 2035. The BN-800 reactor connected to the grid in 2015. That's a gap of 20 years between building more BN-series reactors. Meanwhile Russia has completed 6 conventional pressurized water reactors in the last 5 years: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=RU https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... I think it's fair to say that breeders are still too expensive and complicated to compete with conventional reactors. The money saved on fuel is just not enough to justify the extra complications considering how inexpensive uranium remains.

nine_k 4y ago

I thought that the main problem with the breeder reactor design is the proliferation risk, because they also produce (and can burn) plutonium usable for building a bomb. I frankly think that these considerations are exaggerated in countries which already have nuclear bombs (like USA, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel,..). Japan does not have a nuclear arsenal, but, frankly, a normal nuclear power plant can also produce plutonium, maybe only somehow more visibly, so Japan might have built nuclear warheads on a year or so, had they decided to do so (and violate their Constitution).

panick21_ 4y ago
No the problem was that 'proliferation risk' was used by the enemies of nuclear to oppose all these programs and get them canceled. Even when the main use of those reactors would have been to consume the nuclear waste from the existing PWR reactors demostically. But sure lets kill a great program to build next generation reactors and solve the 'nuclear waste' 'problem' by preventing that. Just another one of the many ways the public opposition to nuclear has prevented all the progress.