Reasonable question: whether construction of the nuclear power plant releases Belarus from power or fuel dependence on countries of suppliers?

Attempting to troubleshoot utilizations in country of Canadian reactor “Candu”, authors of the nuclear program motive it necessity to extend a circle of the countries delivering Belarus power resources to. They even affirmed, that could acquire, at last, fuel (it means nuclear) in any country of the world. Whether it is so?

Concluding the agreement with any country or firm about delivery of an atomic reactor, the country - customer (that is in this case Belarus) legibly reserves all terms of delivery and installation of equipment and fuel, more precisely, fuel cells to this concrete reactor, ensuring by the essentialist spare parts and materials. Conditions of recovery to the supplier of the spent fuel cells and other conditions are reserved also. From this moment, the customer appears in the uttermost dependence on country or firm of the supplier. Practically everything, that is connected to construction and exploitation of a reactor, and decommission, entirely depends on the firm - supplier. Any breaking of terms and conditions of contract is involved in serious consequences, including financial.

The opinion that for any reactor it is very easy to buy fuel in any country, contradicts a true state of affairs, as fuel assemblies, being an integral part of a concrete reactor, are delivered by the firm - supplier of the reactor. A design of fuel assembly and structure of fuel for each construction of reactor are specific and licensed. Any other firm, which will produce fuel assembly, should have the designer documentation both on fuel assembly and on a reactor that is intellectual property of the firm, which have delivered a reactor, and the license for the right of production. Thus, such firm will be constrained to take up the responsibility for any breaking or accidents in work of the reactor, connected to manufacture of fuel assembly. The supply of fuel assembly and especially recovery of the spent nuclear fuel in fuel assembly structure is very complicated not only in connection with a seller’s price of the given process, but also because of necessity of receiving of the permission to transportation of radioactive nuclear fuel through territories of other states.

About complexity of the given process speaks the fact of storage of 110 fuel assemblies in the settlement Sosny near Minsk, which have been extracted from an experimental reactor “Pamir” and should be returned to Russia. For already more than ten years, they are found in spent fuel pit, carefully guarded and served. There is a conforming staff of employees of the Institute of energy problems. However, may be that is the reason why it is not sent to Russia? Probably, again personal interests dominate above interests of country and people!

Reasoning on the subject of obtaining of nuclear fuel and fuel assembly from any country very much remind above mentioned statements of our hapless experts about the possibility that if Belarusian people will work hard, can construct the nuclear power plant for three years. It is difficult even to tell, what is more in that: aplomb, self-confidence, and persevering tendency by any ways to decide own problems, routine for this category of people lie or simply incompetence and illiteracy. Especially cautious it is necessary to be with those high-ranking, whom from apparent height of the position attempt to impose all of us the “indisputable truth”. Even if the person names himself as the academician, it does not testify yet that in this concrete sphere he knows something.

Thus, the country decided on construction by the own nuclear power plant based on another’s reactor, from the very beginning of works becomes the hostage of the firm - supplier of the reactor equipment on all questions.

And the second moment. Having refused from “game” with Canadians, authors of the nuclear program were reoriented on a reactor of Russian production WWER-640. In this case, “game” in “power independence” finally will even more hardly adhere all energy of Belarus to the unique supplier of power supplies – to Russia. As we see, there are no not only sequences, but also adherences to principles of supporters of nuclear energy of Belarus in their practical actions.

Organic fuel (the natural gas, black oil, coal, peat) has no such limitations, both by delivery, and at firing on power plants. Moreover, there is a wide possibility of reservation of fuel: the same plant can work on natural gas, black oil and even on coal. Thus, the listed kinds of organic fuel can be delivered from any state by rather simple and available means. Belarus has sources of receiving of the fuel, permitting to provide delivery of a natural gas, black oil and coal in necessary amounts. Today the supplier of these kinds of fuel is Russia. Coal would be more favourable for delivering from Poland. In the attitude of gas and mineral oil, Belarus occupies especially favourable position. Through Belarus passes gas main through which European countries are supplied with gas. One more, more powerful gas-main “Yamal-Europe” passes through our country too. We already spoke that only reconnoitred on today stores of gas in Russia is enough on 60-80 years that exceeds not only times of construction and exploitation of the nuclear power plant taken together, but also resource times of exhaustion available at the price of stores of nuclear fuel.

In addition, one more fragments from “atomic lobbyists”. Speaking about general structure of energy of Belarus, they confidently declare, that “skeleton”, that is its basic part, should constitute NPP. Thus, they recognize that NPP due to resistance of the work will provide certain stationary amounting of the charge of the electric power in country. Thermal plants should work as “pick ups”, should cover diurnal, seasonal and any chance fluctuations of a current consumption. As speak in similar events, zeal without knowledge is a runaway horse. The data given in the article [61] will not be agreed in any way with confidence of our atomic lobbyists. From these data, for example, follows, that on n 1985 on the Chernobyl NPP “alongside with scheduled repairs emergencies shut-down of power units and abandoning of the equipment on the various causes took place, during the year were fixed 26 descended lowering of plants capacity, … and in the first three weeks of January 1986, – 9 times”. And still: “In the report of Gosatomnadzor of Ukraine for year 2001 years intercommunicated, that all of 13 Ukrainian atomic reactors were unstable, the quantity of irregularities has considerably increased. For the year 67 malfunctions have been registered, including 22 after which it was necessary to intercept work of a reactor”. Well, are you convinced that atomic reactor work stable very much?

It is possible to lump the blame onto our “original mentality”. This word become to use frequently, when want to explain inexplicable by that. In addition, speak: we have such mentality, what do you want from us?

Well nevertheless, how do you like praised stability of work of so-called “basic sources of the electric power”? Similar, that thermal plants in such system should first ”stop up holes”, framed with fails of nuclear power plants.

Tendency to impose to Belarus the program of creation of atomic energy does not decide a problem of so-called “power safety” of the country, but also is capable to drive it in dead spot of irresistible economic, ecological and demographic problems.

The serious substantiations presented by the Committee on sustainable energy of the European Economic Commission of the United Nations on October 1998, session [52], reconfirm the conclusion that in the nearest future for Humankind the most perspective and safety kind of fuel is a natural gas.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14