assignment on energy resources

FREE K-12 standards-aligned STEM

curriculum for educators everywhere!

Find more at TeachEngineering.org .

• TeachEngineering
• Energy Resources and Systems

Lesson Energy Resources and Systems

Grade Level: 8 (6-8)

(eight 40-minute class periods)

(time required depends greatly on the depth of energy source research projects)

Lesson Dependency: Energy Forms, States and Conversions

Subject Areas: Physical Science, Science and Technology

NGSS Performance Expectations:

• Print lesson and its associated curriculum

Curriculum in this Unit Units serve as guides to a particular content or subject area. Nested under units are lessons (in purple) and hands-on activities (in blue). Note that not all lessons and activities will exist under a unit, and instead may exist as "standalone" curriculum.

• Energy Intelligence Agency
• Energy in Our Lives Carousel
• Energy Choices Game
• Energy Perspectives
• Enough Energy? Play the Renew-a-Bead Game
• Energy Sources Research
• Energy Systems

TE Newsletter

Engineering connection, learning objectives, worksheets and attachments, more curriculum like this, introduction/motivation, associated activities, vocabulary/definitions, user comments & tips.

Engineers are primarily responsible for the research, development and design of the equipment that captures energy from renewable and fossil fuel resources for human use. Given the eventual decline in the availability of fossil fuel resources, engineers are currently designing technologies for capturing renewable energy resources that are more efficient, reliable and economically competitive.

After this lesson, students should be able to:

• Identify at least five sources of energy.
• Explain why an increased dependence on renewable energy sources is an inevitable part of our future.
• Describe how the depletion of fossil fuels is a serious global issue.
• Graphically represent data and explain the trends.
• Use and explain a mathematical model of a real-life phenomenon.
• Identify and describe the parts of an energy system.

Educational Standards Each TeachEngineering lesson or activity is correlated to one or more K-12 science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) educational standards. All 100,000+ K-12 STEM standards covered in TeachEngineering are collected, maintained and packaged by the Achievement Standards Network (ASN) , a project of D2L (www.achievementstandards.org). In the ASN, standards are hierarchically structured: first by source; e.g. , by state; within source by type; e.g. , science or mathematics; within type by subtype, then by grade, etc .

Ngss: next generation science standards - science, common core state standards - math.

View aligned curriculum

Do you agree with this alignment? Thanks for your feedback!

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association - Technology

State standards, national council of teachers of mathematics - math, national science education standards - science, new york - math, new york - science.

(Note: Enough information is provided here for the first day and into the second class period of this lesson.)

(Begin the class with a brainstorm discussion. Students are already familiar with some of these issues.)

• Where does the energy we use come from? Energy comes from an energy source. (Write the heading, Sources, on the board and brainstorm with the class for examples of energy sources.)
• What do we know about these energy sources? (Show pictures provided in the attached PowerPoint file.) Each of these sources has a starting form and is converted into a different form for our convenient use. (Hand out the Sources and Conversion Worksheet for students to use to take notes). Refer to the Energy Systems activity to have students solidify their understanding by reviewing diagrams of energy systems and labeling components.
• Fossil fuels – chemical (petroleum, natural gas, coal)
• Uranium – nuclear
• Biomass – chemical
• Geothermal – heat (generated from nuclear processes within the Earth)
• Hydro – mechanical
• Wind – mechanical
• Solar - electromagnetic

Can we use this energy in its form? For example, can sunlight be directly used to power a radio? No, a solar photovoltaic panel must be used for energy conversion. An energy system is a set of conversion technologies that convert energy resources, such as energy from the sun, into forms that we can utilize for human needs. Have students reasearch an energy question of their own with the Energy Sources Research actvity.

Energy resources are available in our natural world. Solar energy is responsible for almost all of these resources. The sun is responsible for the uneven heating of the Earth that causes wind and sunlight and plant photosynthesis creates biomass materials such as wood or corn that we can convert into useable energy. The exceptions are nuclear and geothermal.

Energy resources that are replenished at the same rate that we use them are defined as renewable energy resources. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy are examples of renewable energy. Biomass can be renewable if we use the plant material at the same rate that it regrows. But, if we chop down and burn all the trees in a short period of time, that resource is not considered renewable. Refer to the Enough Energy? Play the Renew-a-Bead Game to illustrate how non-renewable resources are depleted over time. 

Fossil fuels are also a form of solar energy because they were generated from biomass materials millions of years ago. They are not renewable because we are using them at a much faster rate than they are being regenerated.

Lesson Background and Concepts for Teachers

Most of our energy is originally derived from the sun.

Environmental impacts differ depending upon the energy source and conversion process.

Energy sources can be classified as renewable, nonrenewable or inexhaustible resources.

• An energy source can be considered renewable if it is replenished within a short period of time.
• Renewable resources include solar, wind (including offshore), hydro (including micro-hydro), geothermal and biomass.

The world's supply of nonrenewable fossil fuel resources is limited. Their combustion can negatively affect our environment. Currently, our society is heavily dependent upon nonrenewable fossil fuel energy resources, and our lives could be negatively impacted if the demand for these resources exceeds the supply. This "peak" in the oil supply occurred in the US in the 1970s (see Figure 1). Our country survived that peak by increasing its imports of oil from other countries. As the entire globe faces the next peak in oil production, we'll have to change to other energy sources (and reduce the amount of oil that we consume).

• For more on how fossil fuels were formed: https://www.kqed.org/quest/64950/how-were-fossil-fuels-formed-part-1-of-5
• For a poster and information on "peak oil":  https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/438749188670758431/

Different energy sources have different costs.

A system is made up of a sequence of conversions. A basic description of an energy conversion is: Energy from a source provides input to another system component, which converts the form and/or state of energy and provides output to another system component.

In the conversion of energy, a significant fraction of that energy can be "lost" from the system (in the form of heat, sound, vibration, etc.). This energy is not really lost, it is just not converted to the desirable or intended form.

The components of an energy system must work together to transform energy into a form that can be used in our society. Systems can be divided into inputs, processes, outputs and feedback.

Watch this activity on YouTube

• Energy Sources Research - Students research a particular question of energy source and prepare a report or brief presentation to share with the class (or as a homework assignment).
• Energy Systems - Students review diagrams of energy systems and label components.

biomass energy: Energy released from plants (wood, corn, etc.) through combustion or other chemical process.

energy system: An energy system is made up of a sequence of conversions with inputs and outputs that transform an energy resource into a form usable for human work or heating.

fossil fuel: A non-renewable energy resource that began to form millions of years ago from the remains of once living plants and animals. Its current forms include petroleum, coal and natural gas.

geothermal energy : Heat energy from the Earth.

hydropower: Transformation of the energy stored in a depth of water into electricity.

non-renewable energy: Resources, such as fossil fuels, that cannot be replaced by natural processes at the same rate it is consumed.

peak oil : The point at which the rate that a non-renewable resource (oil) can be produced declines due to the limitations of extraction processes and the availability of the resource.

photovoltaic: A chemical process that releases electrons from a semi-conductor material in the presence of sunlight to generate electricity.

renewable energy: Resources, such as wind and water, that can be recycled or replaced at a rate faster than they are consumed.

solar energy: Energy from the sun; often captured directly as heat or as electricity through a photovoltaic process.

system component: One process in a system comprised of many processes or components.

uranium: An element that releases heat as it undergoes radioactive decay.

wind energy: Energy transferred with the motion of air in the lower atmosphere that arises from differential heating of the Earth. The energy in the wind can be extracted as mechanical energy to do work such as grind grains (a wind mill) or generate electricity (wind turbine).

Class Discussion : At the beginning of the lesson, lead a class discussion to evaluate what students already know about energy sources. Through this brainstorming session, see at what level the students need concepts reinforced.

Worksheet : Have students complete the questions and hand in the Renew-a-Bead Worksheet. Review their answers to gauge their comprehension of the subject matter.

Homework : The fossil fuel graphing activity reinforces the concept that these are non-renewable resources.

Quiz : At the end of this lesson, administer the quiz, which covers materials in lessons 4 and 5.

Research Project (or Homework): The research project on energy sources requires students to read and synthesize information to understand and answer questions related to a particular energy source

Students learn and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of renewable and non-renewable energy sources. They also learn about our nation's electric power grid and what it means for a residential home to be "off the grid."

R.E.A.C.T. Renewable Energy Activities – Choices for Tomorrow Teacher's Activity Guide, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Education Programs, Golden, CO. Accessed December 29, 2008. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy01/30927.pdf

Energy Information Administration, EIA Kid's Page – Energy Facts. US Department of Energy. Accessed December 29, 2008. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/index.html

Biggs, A., Burns, J., Daniel, L.H., Ezralson, C., Feather, R.M., Horton, P.M., McCarthy, T.K., Ortleb, E., Snyder, S.L., Werwa, E. Science Voyages: Exploring Life, Earth and Physical Science, Level Red., Glencoe/McGraw Hill: New York, 2000.

Intermediate Level Science Core Curriculum, Grades 5-8, New York State Education, Department, accessed December 31, 2008. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/intersci.pdf

Other Related Information

General Teaching Plan:

This is a multi-day lesson that includes an introduction to energy sources, an activity to understand the value of renewable energy resources, and research on specific sources and their conversions.

Day 1: Intro to Sources

• Brainstorm and present PowerPoint photos to introduce this lesson (see introductory materials).
• Assign the Fossil Fuel Graphing Homework.

Day 2: Renewable/Non-renewable resources

• Complete the Renew-a-Bead Activity.

Day 3: Discuss the results of the Renew-a-Bead Activity and Fossil Fuel Graphing Homework.

Day 4: Energy Sources Research Activity

Day 5: Energy Sources Research (continued)

Day 6: Energy Sources Research presentations and summary (+energy sources trivia, if time)

Day 7: Energy Systems Activity

Day 8: Energy Sources, Systems and Conversions Assessment Quiz

This lesson was originally published by the Clarkson University K-12 Project Based Learning Partnership Program and may be accessed at http://internal.clarkson.edu/highschool/k12/project/energysystems.html.

Contributors

Supporting program, acknowledgements.

This lesson was developed under National Science Foundation grants no. DUE 0428127 and DGE 0338216. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policies of the National Science Foundation, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government.

Last modified: August 16, 2023

Energy Resources, Introduction, Sources, Types & Map

The primary energy source on Earth is the sun. Know about Energy Resources, Conventional and non-Conventional Energy Sources & their Maps in this article for the UPSC examination.

Table of Contents

Energy Resources

The traditional definition of energy is the capacity of a system to perform labour, but as energy can take many different forms, it is challenging to come up with a single, all-encompassing definition. It is an attribute of an item that can be changed or transferred from one object to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Energy comes from a variety of places.

Mineral fuels are necessary for the production of electricity, which is needed by industry, transportation, and other economic sectors. The traditional energy sources include nuclear energy minerals and fossil fuels including coal, petroleum, and natural gas. These conventional sources are finite, run out and exhaust with time.

Energy Resources Types

Natural sources of energy can be divided into two categories i.e, Conventional Sources of Energy and Non-Conventional Sources of Energy.

Difference between Conventional Sources of Energy and Non-Conventional Sources of Energy

Conventional energy sources.

One of the vital minerals, coal is primarily employed in the production of thermal energy and the smelting of iron ore. Gondwana and tertiary deposits are the two main geological eras in which coal can be found in rock sequences. In India, bituminous coal accounts for over 80% of the non-coking quality coal reserves.

The Damodar Valley is home to India’s most significant Gondwana coal deposits.They are located in the Jharkhand-Bengal coal belt, which has significant coalfields such as Raniganj, Jharia, Bokaro, Giridih, and Karanpura.The largest coal field is Jharia, followed by Raniganj. The Godavari, Mahanadi, and Sone river valleys are the others that are connected to coal. The most significant coal mining areas are Singrauli in Madhya Pradesh, Singareni in Telangana, Pandur in Andhra Pradesh, Talcher and Rampur in Odisha, Korba in Chhattisgarh, Talcher and Rampur in Odisha, Chanda-Wardha, Kamptee and Bander in Maharashtra.

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Nagaland all have tertiary coal deposits. It is obtained from the Meghalayan regions of Darangiri, Cherrapunji, Mewlong, and Langrin; upper Assamese regions of Makum, Jaipur, and Nazira; the Arunachal Pradesh regions of Namchik-Namphuk; and Kalakot (Jammu and Kashmir). In addition, coastal regions in Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, and Pondicherry have brown coal, often known as lignite.

2. Petroleum

Hydrocarbons in liquid and gaseous forms that vary in chemical composition, colour, and specific gravity make up crude petroleum. For all internal combustion engines in automobiles, trains, and aeroplanes, it is a necessary source of energy. Petrochemical industries use its myriad byproducts to make fertiliser, synthetic rubber, synthetic fibre, pharmaceuticals, vaseline, lubricants, wax, soap, and cosmetics. Tertiary-era sedimentary rocks contain crude petroleum.

The Oil and Natural Gas Commission was established in 1956, and since then, oil exploration and production have been actively pursued. The sole oil-producing refinery until 1956 was the Digboi in Assam, but things changed after 1956. New oil reserves have been discovered in the country’s extreme western and eastern regions in recent years.

Digboi, Naharkatiya, and Moran are significant oil-producing regions in Assam. Gujarat has several significant oil reserves, including Ankleshwar, Kalol, Mehsana, Nawagam, Kosamba, and Lunej. Mumbai High, which is located 160 kilometres off the coast of Mumbai, was founded in 1973, and production there started in 1976.

In exploratory wells in the Krishna-Godavari and Kaveri basins on the east coast, oil and natural gas have been discovered. Crude oil, which has numerous contaminants, is the oil that is extracted from the wells. It can’t be used straight up. It requires improvement. India has two different kinds of refineries: (a) market-based and (b) field-based. Field-based refineries are illustrated by Digboi, while market-based refineries are illustrated by Barauni.

3. Natural Gas

In order to transport and market natural gas, the Gas Authority of India Limited was established as a public sector enterprise in 1984. It is found in all oil fields alongside oil, however, there are exclusive reserves in Tripura, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra as well as along the eastern coast (Tamil Nadu, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh).

Energy Resources Maps

Below are the Maps of the Energy Resources Maps of India

Non-Conventional Energy Sources

Coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear energy all use finite raw materials as their primary energy source. Only renewable energy sources like sun, wind, hydro geothermal, and biomass are considered sustainable energy sources. These energy sources are more environmentally responsible and evenly dispersed. After the initial cost is covered, non-conventional energy sources will offer more consistent, eco-friendly, and less expensive energy.

1. Nuclear Energy

In recent years, nuclear energy has shown to be a reliable source. Uranium and thorium are significant minerals utilised in the production of nuclear energy. The Dharwar rocks contain uranium reserves. Geographically, it is known that uranium ores can be found along the Singbhum Copper belt in a number of areas. Additionally, it can be found in the districts of Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, Durg in Chhattisgarh, Alwar, and Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan, and Udaipur, Alwar, and Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan. Monazite and ilmenite in the beach sands of Kerala and Tamil Nadu’s coasts are the main sources of thorium. The richest monazite deposits in the world are found in the Keralan districts of Palakkad and Kollam, close to Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, and near the Mahanadi river delta in Odisha.

The Atomic Energy Commission was founded in 1948, but advancements couldn’t be achieved until the Atomic Energy Institute in Trombay was founded in 1954 and later renamed the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in 1967. The significant nuclear energy projects are those at Tarapur in Maharashtra, Rahatbhata near Kota in Rajasthan, Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, Narora in Uttar Pradesh, Kaiga in Karnataka, and Kakarapara in Gujarat.

2. Solar Energy

Solar energy is created by harnessing the sun’s rays in photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaics and solar thermal technology are two methods that are thought to be particularly effective in harnessing solar energy. Comparatively speaking, solar thermal energy has some advantages over all other non-renewable energy sources. It is affordable, environmentally friendly, and simple to build.

Solar power is 10% more efficient than nuclear power and 7% more efficient than coal or oil-based systems. Appliances like heaters, crop dryers, cookers, etc. typically use it more. Gujarat and Rajasthan in western India have the most potential for the growth of solar energy.

3. Wind Power

Wind power is a limitless, pollution-free source of electricity. The process of converting wind energy is straightforward. Through the use of turbines, wind energy’s kinetic energy is transformed into electrical energy. As a source of energy, the trade winds, westerlies, and seasonal wind patterns like the monsoon have all been exploited.

Other than these, it is also possible to generate power using local winds, land breezes, and sea breezes. India has already begun producing wind energy. It has an ambitious plan to erect 250 wind turbines with a combined 45 megawatts of power in 12 suitable spots, primarily along the coast. To reduce the cost of oil imports, India’s Ministry of Non-Conventional Sources of Energy is fostering the growth of wind energy.

More than 50,000 megawatts of wind energy can be produced in India, of which only one-fourth is feasible to use. Conditions are favourable for wind energy in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.

4. Tidal and Wave Energy

Ocean currents are a never-ending source of energy. Continuous efforts have been made from the beginning of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to develop a more effective energy system using constant tidal waves and ocean currents.

The west coast of India is known to experience large tidal waves. As a result, India has a lot of potential for tidal energy production along the coasts, but this potential has not yet been realised.

5. Geothermal Energy

Extreme heat is emitted as magma from the earth’s interior rises to the surface. It is possible to successfully harness and transform this thermal energy into electrical energy. In addition to this, thermal energy is also produced from the hot water that spews from gyser wells. It is commonly referred to as geothermal energy. These days, one of the main energy sources that can be created as a backup supply is thought to be this energy. Since the Middle Ages, people have been using the hot springs and geysers. At Manikaran in Himachal Pradesh, an Indian geothermal energy plant has been put into operation.

6. Bio-energy

Bio-energy is defined as energy produced from biological materials, such as municipal, industrial, and other wastes as well as agricultural residues. A potential source of energy conversion is bioenergy.

It can be transformed into gas for cooking, heat energy, or electrical energy. Along with processing waste and garbage, it will also generate energy. This would boost the quality of life for rural residents in developing nations, lessen environmental pollution, increase independence, and ease the demand for fuel wood. Okhla in Delhi is one such initiative that turns garbage from the city into energy.

Energy Resources Conservation

The difficulty of sustainable development necessitates fusing the pursuit of economic growth with environmental considerations. Traditional resource usage practices generate a significant amount of trash and contribute to other environmental issues. Therefore, conserving resources for future generations is necessary for sustainable growth. The necessity to save resources is critical.

Alternative energy sources including solar, wind, wave and geothermal power provide an endless source of energy. To replace the finite resources, these should be developed. Utilizing scrap metals will allow for the recycling of metals in the case of metallic minerals. Utilizing scrap is particularly important for metals like copper, lead, and zinc, where India has limited deposits. Utilizing alternatives for rare metals may also cut down on usage. Reduced export of strategic and rare minerals is necessary to extend the useful life of the current reserve.

Energy Resources UPSC

Conserving means taking care of and preserving these resources for future generations. As a UPSC aspirant, you should be well aware of the location of various oil refineries and the collaboration of India with various countries in upgrading the refineries. Also, the conservation of energy on an individual level is crucial and switching from conventional to non-conventional energy or alternative energy resources should be encouraged and emphasized. This topic of geography holds immense importance from both Prelims and Mains point of View. The details in the article would help candidates preparing for UPSC 2023.

Energy Resources FAQs

Q) What is the primary sources of energy?

Ans. Sun is the primary source of energy.

Q) What do you mean by conventional sources of energy?

Ans. These resources are exhaustible and run out eventually. Examples are Coal, Petroleum.

Q) Is Nuclear energy conventional or non-conventional resources?

Ans. Nuclear energy is a non-conventional resource Examples are Uranium and Thorium.

Q) Where is the Digboi refinery located?

Ans. It is located in Assam.

Q) What are examples of non-conventional resources?

Ans. Non-conventional resources include solar energy, bioenergy, tidal energy and wind energy.

Other Indian Geography Topics

Other fundamental geography topics.

Sharing is caring!

What is the primary sources of energy?

Sun is the primary source of energy

What do you mean by conventional sources of energy?

These resources are exhaustible and run out eventually. Examples are Coal, Petroleum.

Is Nuclear energy conventional or non-conventional resources?

Nuclear energy is a non-conventional resource Examples are Uranium and Thorium.

Where is the Digboi refinery located?

It is located in Assam.

What are examples of non-conventional resources?

Non-conventional resources include solar energy, bioenergy, tidal energy and wind energy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form

Recent Posts

• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

• IB ACIO Salary
• IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

• CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
• CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
• CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7: Work, Energy, and Energy Resources

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 1432

There is no simple, yet accurate, scientific definition for energy. Energy is characterized by its many forms and the fact that it is conserved. We can loosely define energy as the ability to do work, admitting that in some circumstances not all energy is available to do work. Because of the association of energy with work, we begin the chapter with a discussion of work. Work is intimately related to energy and how energy moves from one system to another or changes form.

• 7.0: Prelude to Work, Energy, and Energy Resources Energy plays an essential role both in everyday events and in scientific phenomena. You can no doubt name many forms of energy, from that provided by our foods, to the energy we use to run our cars, to the sunlight that warms us on the beach. You can also cite examples of what people call energy that may not be scientific, such as someone having an energetic personality. Not only does energy have many interesting forms, it is involved in almost all phenomena, and is one of the most important con
• 7.1: Work- The Scientific Definition Work is the transfer of energy by a force acting on an object as it is displaced. The work \(W\) that a force \(F\) does on an object is the product of the magnitude \(F\) of the force, times the magnitude \(d\) of the displacement, times the cosine of the angle \(\theta\) between them. In symbols, \[W = Fd \space cos \space \theta. \] The SI unit for work and energy is the joule (J), where \(1 \space J = 1 \space N \cdot m = 1 \space kg \space m^2/s^2\). The work done by a force is zero if the
• 7.2: Kinetic Energy and the Work-Energy Theorem The net work \(W_{net}\) is the work done by the net force acting on an object. Work done on an object transfers energy to the object. The translational kinetic energy of an object of mass \(m\) moving at speed \(v\) is \(KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\). The work-energy theorem states that the net work \(W_{net} \) on a system changes its kinetic energy, \(W_{net} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 - \frac{1}{2}mv_0^2\).
• 7.3: Gravitational Potential Energy Work done against gravity in lifting an object becomes potential energy of the object-Earth system. The change in gravitational potential energy \(\Delta PE_g\), is \(\Delta PE_g = mgh\), with \(h\) being the increase in height and \(g\) the acceleration due to gravity. The gravitational potential energy of an object near Earth’s surface is due to its position in the mass-Earth system. Only differences in gravitational potential energy, \(\Delta PE_g\),  have physical significance. As an obje
• 7.4: Conservative Forces and Potential Energy A conservative force is one for which work depends only on the starting and ending points of a motion, not on the path taken. We can define potential energy \((PE\) for any conservative force, just as we defined \(PE_g\) for the gravitational force. The potential energy of a spring is \(PE_s = \frac{1}{2}kx^2\), where \(k\) is the spring’s force constant and |(x\) is the displacement from its undeformed position. Mechanical energy is defined to be \(KE = PE\) for conservative force.
• 7.5: Nonconservative Forces A nonconservative force is one for which work depends on the path. Friction is an example of a nonconservative force that changes mechanical energy into thermal energy. Work \(W_{nc}\) done by a nonconservative force changes the mechanical energy of a system. In equation form, \(W_{nc} = \Delta KE + \Delta PE \) or, equivalently, \(KE_i + PE_i + W_{nc} = KE_f + PE_f .\) When both conservative and nonconservative forces act, energy conservation can be applied and used to calculate motion in terms
• 7.6: Conservation of Energy The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy is constant in any process. Energy may change in form or be transferred from one system to another, but the total remains the same. When all forms of energy are considered, conservation of energy is written in equation form as \[KE_i + PE_i + W_{nc} + OE_i = KE_f + PE_f + OE_f ,\] where \(OE\) is all other forms of energy besides mechanical energy.
• 7.7: Power Power is the rate at which work is done, or in equation form, for the average power \(P\) for work \(W\) done over a time \(t\), \(P = W/t\). The SI unit for power is the watt (W), where \(1 \space W = 1 \space J/s\). The power of many devices such as electric motors is also often expressed in horsepower (hp), where \(1\space hp = 746 \space W.\)
• 7.8: Work, Energy, and Power in Humans The human body converts energy stored in food into work, thermal energy, and/or chemical energy that is stored in fatty tissue. The rate at which the body uses food energy to sustain life and to do different activities is called the metabolic rate, and the corresponding rate when at rest is called the basal metabolic rate (BMR) The energy included in the basal metabolic rate is divided among various systems in the body, with the largest fraction going to the liver and spleen, and the brain.
• 7.9: World Energy Use The relative use of different fuels to provide energy has changed over the years, but fuel use is currently dominated by oil, although natural gas and solar contributions are increasing. Although non-renewable sources dominate, some countries meet a sizeable percentage of their electricity needs from renewable resources. The United States obtains only about 10% of its energy from renewable sources, mostly hydroelectric power.
• 7.E: Work, Energy, and Energy Resources (Exercise)

Thumbnail: One form of energy is mechanical work, the energy required to move an object of mass m a distance d when opposed by a force F, such as gravity. Image use with permission (CC-SA-BY-NC -3.0; anonymous).

Energy resources: An introduction to energy resources

An introduction to energy resources

Understanding energy resources involves considering all types of energy source from various scientific and technological standpoints, with a focus on the uses, limitations and consequences of using energy that is available to humanity. This course sets the scene by considering how much energy human society uses and the basic concepts of energy , work , power and efficiency, then briefly investigates the different types of energy available, their sources and renewability.

This OpenLearn course provides a sample of level 2 study in Science

Learning outcomes

After studying this course, you should be able to:

understand the difference between energy and power , and their units and prefixes

state the relative contributions of different natural energy sources to the global energy budget

describe the contribution of photosynthesis to the carbon cycle , and distinguish the terrestrial and marine parts of the cycle

discuss the issues involved in concentrating, storing and transporting energy

recognise which energy resources have a low energy density , and which have a high energy density .

1 Energy use

Until about 8000 years ago humans relied on hunting and gathering for food, and burning wood to keep warm. Their exact energy demands can at best only be estimated but to survive they probably needed about as much energy as it takes to run a couple of ordinary domestic light bulbs continuously. Later, agriculture developed, and although wood was still the chief fuel, animal power , animal dung and charcoal were also used. Even today, such energy sources based on natural biomass dominate the lives of human populations in the so-called 'Third World' or 'developing countries'. The 19th century heralded a large increase in energy use in what were to become industrialised countries ( Figure 1.1 ), particularly the use of coal. Homes and other buildings were heated; factories and railways were powered by steam engines ( Figure 1.2 ); mining and chemical industries developed and agriculture became more mechanised. The emergence of technological societies in the 20th century resulted in an even larger increase in energy use for manufacturing, agriculture, transport and a host of other applications. In technologically advanced countries the largest increases have been in using gas for heating, oil products for transport, and electricity as a convenient means of transferring energy generated by a variety of sources ( Figure 1.3 ).

It is important to remember that the primary energy released by all forms of energy resources is not the amount that performs useful tasks: it is the total amount of energy released by human activity . Energy use and conversion, as you will see, can never be fully efficient. For that reason, the energy consumed usefully by society is considerably less than primary energy released: you will find that we refer to both primary energy and energy consumption (sometimes demand), depending on the context.

World population rose from some 5 million 10 000 years ago, through 1 billion in the 19th century to 6.5 billion in 2005. This rapid increase in population, together with a sharp increase in the demand that each person in the developed world has for energy , led to the dramatic rise in global energy consumption ( Figure 1.1 ).

All the Earth's physical resources, for example metals in ores, water supplies and building stone, depend on using energy to extract, process and transport them. In effect, the ability to extract and use the Earth's physical resources depends on whether there is a ready supply of energy at the right price. If there were a limitless supply of cheap energy we could turn the entire stock of all physical resources into reserves. One aim of this book, and indeed the whole course, is to examine the limits that exist in reality: some are governed by physical laws, others depend on economics and there are also limits posed by sustaining the Earth's environmental conditions on which life depends.

2 Energy, work, power and efficiency

In everyday speech we often refer colloquially to the powerful politician, the energetic child, the working mother and the efficient administrator. We use these terms imprecisely, and often wrongly, compared with their scientific definitions.

2.1 Some basic concepts

Energy is defined as the capacity to do work , and work is even more precisely defined as a force acting on an object that causes its displacement , and is calculated from force × distance . Work is therefore the foundation for scientific study of motion and change.

The unit of work is the same as that for energy : the joule (J) . Yet a joule, unlike the units of mass, length or time, is not a fundamental unit. Working out the joule in fundamental units takes us to the root of the physics involved. The definition of work ( force × distance) shows that one joule is actually one newton metre (N m).

Force is mass × acceleration , so one newton is the force that gives a mass of one kilogram (kg) an acceleration of one metre per second per second (m s −2 ) , and is therefore equivalent to 1 kg m s −2 .

However, work is not just mechanical movement, such as moving sacks of flour around or turning a wheel. It is also involved in heating a substance (vibrating its molecules), changing its state (melting and boiling) and compressing it, along with many other phenomena.

As an example of the connection between work and energy consider the energy bound up with a photon of light that strikes the photoelectric cell in a solarpowered pocket calculator. Some of that photon's energy becomes an electrical current that contributes to the calculator's microchip executing a calculation. However, most of the original light energy goes to heating up the cell and the liquid crystal display that shows the answer, and there might even be a beep of sound when the calculation is complete. During this process a tiny amount of work is done, but the form of the energy has changed, from the otherwise limitless potential of light to travel an infinite distance through a vacuum, never losing its 'capacity to do work ', to the motion of particles of matter. The last change is eventually expressed by a minuscule rise in temperature in and around the calculator, which ultimately dissipates to help heat up the rest of the Universe! Energy can neither be created or destroyed (the Law of Conservation of Energy ) so the energy of the photon doesn't disappear but is spread far and wide. Although eternal, in practice it is beyond recovery: useful energy in a high grade form is degraded through the material work that it has done.

Energy takes many natural forms: light, heat, sound, mechanical movement ( kinetic energy ), that gained by position in a gravitational field ( potential energy ), the movement of electrons (electricity), chemical energy , that released through Einstein's famous matter- energy conversion E = mc 2 (nuclear energy ) and a great many more. In this book we deal mainly with the forms of energy that are available at sufficiently high grade to be able to do useful work . An implicit theme is that all energy sources are themselves products of work done naturally:

Chemical energy — ' fossil fuels ', such as coal and petroleum, and 'biofuels', such as wood, are the products of conversion of solar energy into the energy of chemical combination through photosynthesis by plants;

Nuclear energy — nuclear fuels are heavy radioactive isotopes produced by thermonuclear fusion in long-dead stars that became supernovae;

Geothermal energy comes from heat produced by the natural decay of radioactive isotopes distributed at very low concentrations in the Earth;

Solar energy is emitted by thermonuclear fusion within the Sun;

Tidal energy is essentially the work done by the gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun on the oceans;

Wind and wave energy are solar energy converted into work done by the Earth's atmosphere and oceans;

Hydro energy relies on work done by solar energy in evaporating water that falls as rain or snow at high topographic elevations, which in turn has gravitational potential energy .

Every application that 'uses' energy is in fact converting one form of energy into other forms. Some of this energy conversion is useful, some is not. A kettle boils water, but it may also 'sing' (sound energy ) and heat up itself. A hydroelectric power station turns the kinetic energy of moving water into electricity through generators, but at the same time friction between the moving parts of the generators produces heat and sound. The heat and sound are degraded and less useful forms of energy .

Which energy changes take place when an electric kettle boils water?

Electrical energy is first converted into heat energy as it increases the vibrational movement of atoms in the metal heating element. Heat is conducted through the element into the water, making the water molecules vibrate more, thereby raising its temperature. Finally, heat energy converts water into steam.

The point to be grasped here is that changes of energy from one form to another are commonplace in everyday life.

Power is the rate at which energy is delivered or work is done . It is worth noting the difference between power and energy : energy is an amount of work done over an indefinite time interval and power is the rate at which energy is converted, i.e. the amount used or made available per second. The units for measuring energy and power are summarised in Box 1.1 below.

Box 1.1 Units of energy and power

All forms of energy are measured in the same unit, the joule (J). A joule is the same amount of energy irrespective of which form (light, sound, electrical, and so on) that energy takes.

Recalling the earlier definitions in this section, when 1 kg falls 1 m at the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface (9.81 m s −2 ), the work done ( force × distance) is mass in kg × acceleration due to gravity in m s −2 × height in m, i.e.:

So a joule is equivalent to the work done when a mass of (1/9.81) kg or 0.102 kg falls through a metre: a mass about the size of the apple reputed to have fallen on Isaac Newton 's head to inspire his theory of gravity! A joule is a small amount of energy so when considering national or international energy use, large multiples of the joule are needed, and these are named in the metric (SI) system using standard prefixes ( Table 1.1 ).

There is another energy unit that will be used occasionally in this book, the tonne oil equivalent (toe) . This is often used by energy statisticians as a convenient means of comparing amounts of energy available from fuels other than oil. One toe is the chemical energy contained in one tonne of oil , and equates approximately to 4.19 × 10 10 J (i.e. 41.9 GJ).

Being a rate, power is measured in joules converted per second (J s −1 ), called watts (W). One watt is equivalent to one joule per second . Note that if you are hit on the head by a falling apple, even though its energy is only about 1 J, the impact is almost instantaneous, so its power is high. Just as a joule is a small unit of energy , so a watt is a small unit of power . Larger quantities of power are quoted using the same prefixes as energy , as given in Table 1.1.

An electric supply of 1 kW will run a microwave oven, or around 10 light bulbs. Working really hard, the human body can deliver about 1 kW for a very short period of time.

Every three months or so most people in the UK receive an electricity bill, which states the number of 'Units' of electricity they have used, as measured by their electricity meter. The 'Units' quoted are kilowatt hours (kW h). But what, in purely physical terms, does 1 kW h represent? One kilowatt hour is the energy delivered at a power of 1 kW for one hour. This is equivalent to 1 kJ per second for an hour, i.e. 3600 kJ.

In practical terms, you might think that one kW h was a measure of all the work done around your home by various appliances in an hour. You would be very disappointed, because not one of them is perfectly efficient. In fact over 70% of each 'Unit' would ultimately have been lost to heating the rest of the Universe without doing any useful work . As you will see below, generating and then transmitting the electrical energy to your home will have been inefficient too, so a high proportion of your bill had been spent on work that was of no practical use to you.

When we convert energy from one form to another, the output that is useful to us is never as much as the energy input. The ratio of the useful output to the input (i.e. the ratio of useful work done to the energy supplied ) is called the energy efficiency of the process and is usually expressed as a percentage. Every natural process involves a change in grade of energy through the work that it does, but one joule always ends up as one joule, because of the Law of Conservation of Energy . Ignoring this transformation in grade, energy conversion could be said to be 100% efficient. But that misses the point. A perfect energychanging machine would get out as much useful energy as was put in, so it would be 100% efficient, but such a machine does not and probably cannot exist.

Efficiency can be as high as 90% in a water turbine, but only around 35-40% in a coal-fired power station. The energy delivered to do useful work is considerably less than the primary energy consumed in electricity generation.

2.2 Present-day energy use

Global annual consumption of all forms of primary energy increased more than tenfold during the 20th century ( Figure 1.1 ), and by the year 2002 reached an estimated 451 EJ. About three-quarters of this energy came from coal, oil and gas ( Figure 1.4 ).

If the global annual energy consumption is 451 EJ, what would be the average rate of consumption each second of every day, i.e. the global power demand?

Make a note of these equivalent amounts, as you will be comparing them with the energy and power available from various sources later.

With a global population of 6.5 billion, each person's 'drain' on primary energy is, on average, around 73 GJ per year. But globally, there are major regional differences in energy consumption ( Figure 1.5 a). Developed countries, with industrial as well as domestic demands, use energy in vast quantities and at alarming rates. In North America it is around 350 GJ per person per year, nearly five times the global average, and totalling around 28% of global energy use by about 4.5% of world population. People in Europe and the former Soviet Union use about double the global average. Figure 1.5 b, which shows the amount of lighting seen from space at night, gives a graphic picture of the inequalities of energy use.

In 2002, UK primary energy used was the equivalent of 9.7 EJ: about 164 GJ for each of the 59 million people in the UK, just over double the global average. About one-fifth of the UK's primary energy requirement is used in the home, 30% lost in conversion and most of the rest for services, transport and industry (Figure 1.6 below).

2.3 Global power demand

In Section 2.2 we calculated a value of 14.3 TW for the average global requirement for primary power in 2002.

For a global population at this time of 6.2 billion, how much primary power was needed to support the activities of each person in the world, on average?

Dividing 14.3 TW (14.3 × 10 12 W) by the world population of 6.2 × 10 9 gives an average primary power requirement of 2.3 kW per person.

The average global figure of 2.3 kW per person is about five times less than that needed to enable each North American citizen to sustain the lifestyle to which he or she has grown accustomed. If every individual in the world were to demand as much energy as the average person uses in North America, the global energy supply industries would require a fivefold increase in their use of primary energy sources. Even more daunting is the prospect of continued growth of both world population and per capita energy demand.

3 Sources of energy from the natural environment

The natural environment itself is bathed in energy from other sources. Standing on a cliff top on a bright spring day you can feel the warmth of the Sun and the freshness of the breeze and hear the crashing of breaking waves below. All these energetic processes can be compared in terms of energy and power .

In order to put the total global energy supply and demand into proper perspective we need to know the contribution made by different natural energy sources to the Earth's energy supply. By far the most important source on Earth is the Sun, but some energy comes from the gravitational attraction between Sun, Moon and Earth, and some from the Earth's own internal heat. Figure 1.7 gives all the data on natural energy sources you will need in working through this section.

3.1 Solar radiation

Over 99.9% of the energy available at the Earth's surface comes from the Sun. Solar energy emanates from a vast nuclear powerhouse producing heat, light and other types of electromagnetic radiation released by nuclear reactions. The Sun's power output is enormous, some 10 14 TW, but only a tiny proportion, about 1.7 × 10 5 TW, reaches the Earth. About a third of this is reflected by clouds and the Earth's surface directly back into space ( Figure 1.7 ).

How much energy reaches the Earth (surface and atmosphere together) from the Sun each year? (Don't forget the numbers in Figure 1.7 are in terms of power .)

The Sun supplies 1.7 × 10 5 TW to the Earth, of which 1.1 × 10 5 TW enters the Earth's system (0.3 × 10 5 TW to atmospheric heating + 0.8 × 10 5 TW absorbed at the surface, see Figure 1.7). 1.1 × 10 5 TW is equivalent to 1.1 × 10 17 J s −1 , and since there are 3.15 × 10 7 s in a year, the Sun's annual energy supply is 3.15 × 10 7 s × 1.1 × 10 17 J s −1 = 3.5 × 10 24 J or 3.5 × 10 6 EJ.

If all the solar energy that reaches the Earth could be harnessed, current human needs would be supplied thousands of times over. The reason it cannot is explained later.

Solar radiation is potentially available as an energy resource either as direct solar energy using solar cells or heating devices ( Figure 1.8 ), or naturally through plant and animal growth. Some 50 000 TW of absorbed solar radiation is transferred back into the atmosphere through evaporation and convection ( Figure 1.7 ). Some of this energy reappears in a usable form when water eventually returns to the surface as precipitation. This energy is largely dissipated as frictional heat and sound during the return flow of the water to the oceans, but it can also be harnessed as hydropower , an indirect form of solar energy .

However, if the electrical power requirement of an average British household — around 3 kW — came from solar energy alone, even if every day were sunny each dwelling in Britain would need about 100 m 2 of solar panels, on a very large south-facing roof. But is solar energy the answer to energy supply in sunnier parts of the world?

California has an area of about 4.1 × 10 11 m 2 . Even if the Sun shines there for 12 hours each and every day of the year, what percentage of California's land surface area would need to be covered by solar panels to supply the energy demands of the whole of the USA? The USA used 96.5 EJ of energy in 2003. A 10% efficient, metre-square solar panel would supply 31 J every second.

Assuming that solar panels operated for 1.6 × 10 7 seconds a year (12 hours a day), one such panel would supply about 5 × 10 8 J. The USA would therefore need around 2.0 × 10 11 such panels (i.e. 96.5 × 10 18 J divided by 5 × 10 8 J). Since the area of California is 4.1 × 10 11 m 2 , about 50% of it would have to be covered by solar panels to meet US energy demand. (The assumptions we have made are so unrealistic that the figure would be much higher, were a ' solar energy only' scheme to be implemented.)

What happens to the solar energy that reaches the Earth's surface? Because the Earth is a sphere, the heating effect of the Sun is greater in equatorial latitudes than at the poles. Coupled with the Earth's rotation, this produces winds which blow between belts of high and low atmospheric pressure. About 10% of the Earth's absorbed solar power (10 000 TW) gives rise to winds ( Figure 1.7 ). Much of the energy of winds is dissipated as heat, but some 10% of this wind power (i.e. 1000 TW) is transferred to waves through frictional effects at the sea surface.

Could the world be supplied from wind and wave power one day?

Theoretically, yes, but practically, no. Total global wind power amounts to 10 000 TW, i.e. around one thousand times human power demands. However, tapping wind power over one-thousandth of the world's surface (some 510 000 km 2 or over twice the size of Britain) would be a colossal undertaking and the process would have to be fully efficient. Similar arguments apply to wave power , except that here a maximum of 1000 TW is theoretically available (100 times annual demand), requiring twice the surface area of the Mediterranean Sea to be tapped at 100% efficiency.

Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and to a lesser extent the Sun. Although tides affect all fluid bodies on Earth in some measure, including some parts of the solid Earth itself, their main effect is on the seas and oceans. Ultimately the kinetic energy of tides is converted into heat, mainly through friction between water and the sea bed. Tides can be exploited as an energy resource, and the total amount of power available can be calculated from knowledge of the gravitational effects of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. At about 2.7 TW, it is many orders of magnitude less than the power of solar radiation ( Figure 1.7 ) and less than 20% of the current power demand for human activities.

3.3 The Earth's internal heat

The occurrence of both volcanoes and hot springs shows that the Earth's interior is hot, producing molten rock at temperatures up to 1250 °C, and also superheated steam. However, these phenomena are mainly confined to several narrow zones along the world's active plate boundaries. Many measurements have now been made of the amount of heat flowing from the Earth's interior. Outside the distinctive zones mentioned above, heat flow varies from 40-120 milliwatts per square metre (mW m −2 ), largely generated by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes within the Earth. The total power output from the Earth's interior, estimated at some 10 TW, is many orders of magnitude less than the total incident solar power ( Figure 1.7 ).

Could the global energy requirement come entirely from geothermal sources eventually?

No. At 10 TW, this source is roughly only the same as current power demand for human activities. All of it would need to be used (including that from the ocean floor) at an impossible 100% efficiency.

4 Fossil fuels

Part of the incoming solar energy becomes stored in fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal: Figure 1.7 ). To understand why fossil fuels exist you need first to know where the major stores of carbon are on the planet and how, through organic activity, this carbon becomes fixed in rocks and thus liable to be stored for geologically long periods.

4.1 Natural stores of carbon

The major natural stores of carbon (called 'reservoirs') are shown below in Figure 1.9.

Which two reservoirs contain most of the carbon?

Carbonate rocks and preserved organic carbon.

Carbon is being exchanged continually between the principal reservoirs shown in Figure 1.9 . However, since most stored carbon is held in carbonate rocks and preserved organic carbon (POC), the principal carbon exchange over geological timescales (millions of years) is from the surface reservoirs into limestones and POC.

For our purposes two exchange systems can be distinguished (somewhat artificially because in practice the two are intimately linked):

the land-based or terrestrial system in which carbon is exchanged between land plants and both the soil and the atmosphere;

the marine system which exchanges carbon within the oceans and between the oceans and the atmosphere.

Together they form the natural carbon cycle .

4.2 The terrestrial carbon cycle

Figure 1.10 shows the rates of natural carbon exchange between the terrestrial system and the atmosphere.

Using the data in Figure 1.10 , calculate whether there is a net movement of carbon into or out of the atmosphere, as far as the terrestrial carbon cycle is concerned.

Figure 1.10 shows that 120 × 10 12 kg yr −1 flows from land plants and soil and plant detritus into the atmosphere, and 120 × 10 12 kg yr −1 moves from the atmosphere into land plants. Therefore, as far as the terrestrial carbon cycle is concerned, there is on average a net balance of carbon flow. (We show later how special conditions allow accumulations of plant material.)

The average time that carbon stays in a reservoir before moving to another reservoir is known as the residence time , and is measured by the amount of carbon in the reservoir divided by the transfer rate of carbon between it and other reservoirs.

Question 10

What is the average residence time of land-derived carbon in the atmosphere, which contains about 760 × 10 12 kg of carbon?

The residence time of terrestrial carbon in the atmosphere, as defined above, is 760 × 10 12 kg/120 × 10 12 kg yr −1 , or just over 6 years, on average.

As Figure 1.10 shows, each year land plants take 120 × 10 12 kg of carbon from the atmosphere. In the next section we consider how exactly carbon is exchanged between the atmosphere and plants.

4.3 Photosynthesis, respiration and decay

Green plants absorb solar radiation and use its energy to fuel photosynthesis — a chemical reaction in which carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere is combined with water (H 2 O) to form carbohydrates with the general formula C n H 2n O n . One of the simplest carbohydrates , glucose, has the chemical formula C 6 H 12 O 6 , so in its simplest form photosynthesis can be represented by the balanced chemical equation:

The oxygen produced by this reaction is released by plants into the atmosphere. Carbohydrates act as a store of energy for plants and also for other organisms that eat them. Such organisms use oxygen from the air to react with the carbohydrates (and other substances) to liberate energy by a process called respiration . During respiration, carbon dioxide and water are returned to the atmosphere. Expressed in the simplest chemical terms, the balanced reaction is:

Carbon exchanges or fluxes link the chemistry of the atmosphere with plant and animal chemistry. The carbon taken from the atmosphere ( fixed ) by plants enables them to grow, but in addition much of it enters the food chain as either living or dead material. Living plants are eaten by herbivores which themselves may become food for carnivores. The dead material provides food for the decomposers (bacteria and fungi) that live in plant detritus, in the soil, and on the rotting remains of dead animals. Almost all organisms return some carbon to the atmosphere through respiration, but by far the greatest contribution comes from the activities of the decomposers. The timescale by which this takes place is measured in months and years, so plant and animal material is not normally available to be preserved as fossil fuels .

However, if organic matter decays in an environment where the oxygen supply is limited, carbohydrates cannot be broken down completely to form water and carbon dioxide. In this special oxygen-poor ( anoxic ) environment, a carbohydrate comparatively enriched in carbon may be produced. For example, within the waterlogged environment of a swamp (mire), cellulose (a common constituent of plants) can be broken down according to the following reaction:

The residue produced, C 8 H 10 O 5 is relatively enriched in carbon compared with the original cellulose (C 6 H 10 O 5 ). This breakdown reaction releases methane (CH 4 ), as well as carbon dioxide and water. Methane is an organic compound containing carbon and hydrogen but no oxygen; one of a family of organic compounds known as hydrocarbons . So anoxic environments prevent some fixed carbon returning to the atmosphere as CO 2 , and these hydrocarbons together with carbon-rich residues represent a chemical half-way-house within the carbon cycle , which make carbon available to form the basis for fossil fuels .

Although significant layers of decaying plant debris are found on the floor of modern forests, these are often oxygen-rich environments thanks to the constant reworking of decaying material by plants and animals, fungi and bacteria. However, one modern environment with which you are probably familiar does contain plant material decaying in anoxic conditions — the peat bog.This is where useful preservation of terrestrial carbon occurs.

4.4 The marine carbon cycle

The ocean stores much more carbon than the terrestrial system ( Figure 1.9 ). How is this marine carbon fixed into organic carbon within the sediments, and what are the main reasons for marine carbon fluxes? Figure 1.11 shows the rates of natural carbon exchange within the ocean and between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Question 11

From the data presented in Figure 1.11 , is there a net movement of carbon into or out of the atmosphere from the ocean?

Figure 1.11 shows that 90-100 × 10 12 kg of carbon flows each year from ocean surface waters into the atmosphere, while roughly the same amount of carbon moves from the atmosphere into the ocean: there is no net movement.

Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged between the atmosphere and the upper levels of the oceans, by physical and by chemical processes. At the base of the food chain that produces organic material in the oceans are the marine phytoplankton (microscopic water-borne plant life) which require dissolved CO 2 for photosynthesis . The process also requires solar energy , so phytoplankton can live only in the sunlit upper parts of the ocean. Their photosynthesis releases oxygen, which dissolves in seawater. The productivity of phytoplankton depends on sunlight, temperature and supply of nutrients, and therefore varies geographically.

Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than it is in warm water, so the concentration of dissolved CO 2 tends to be higher in cold polar waters than in warm tropical waters. Cold, dense polar water sinks and flows under the influence of gravity along the ocean floor towards the Equator. It returns to the surface by upwellings at various places in the oceans, to supply nutrients and promote unusually high phytoplankton productivity there.

Zooplankton (water-borne animal life, mostly microscopic) and higher marine organisms consume these phytoplankton. The dead remains of phytoplankton, zooplankton and larger organisms sink through the water column, transferring carbon from the upper few hundred metres towards the ocean depths. However, little of this organic matter gets a chance to accumulate on the ocean floor. It provides food for filter feeders in deep water and on the ocean floor, and through them for predatory animals, and ultimately feeds the ubiquitous decomposers. All these organisms release CO 2 back into solution through respiration. As Figure 1.11 shows, only a small proportion of the marine carbon cycle , 0.2 × 10 12 kg yr −1 of carbon, is incorporated into marine sediments.

Question 12

Assume that 0.2 × 10 12 kg yr −1 of carbon were incorporated into marine carbonates and fossil fuels in proportion to their present-day amounts ( Figure 1.9 ). How long would it have taken to deposit all the carbon found in the current global store of POC, of which fossil fuels are a part?

We know from Figure 1.9 that the global carbonate store is some 4 × 10 19 kg of carbon, and that the POC store is some 10 19 kg of carbon, a total of 5 × 10 19 kg of carbon. If carbon were deposited into each reservoir in proportion, the rate of deposition of carbon into POC would be:

At this rate, it would have taken 1 × 10 19 kg/0.04 × 10 12 kg yr −1 , which is 2.5 × 10 8 years, i.e. 250 million years to deposit enough carbon to form the global POC store, which includes fossil fuels .

However, not all fossil fuel formed in the marine carbon cycle ; much of it formed on land ( Section 4.3 ). The preservation of organic material in sediments depends not only on the supply of dead organisms, but also on anoxic chemical conditions where they accumulate.

4.5 Generating carbon — the legacy of volcanoes

What is the origin of the carbon within the carbon cycle ? Figure 1.9 showed that the greatest proportion of the global carbon store is locked into carbonate rocks. Over the 4.5 billion years of the Earth's history, carbon must have moved from the atmosphere into the oceans and thence into carbonates. How did the atmospheric carbon originate?

The Earth's atmosphere as a whole was derived mainly from gases brought to the surface from the Earth's interior. For example, the 1991 eruption of Mount

Etna in Sicily released an estimated 0.01 × 10 12 kg of carbon in the form of CO 2 ( Figure 1.12 ). Most volcanic carbon comes from the steady degassing of lava flows rather than from volcanic vents.

In the short term, volcanic sources release insignificant volumes of CO 2 compared with other fluxes of carbon, but over geological time, degassing of the Earth's interior can reasonably account for all the carbon in the natural surface system.

4.6 The fossil fuel 'bank'

During the period of accumulation of most coal and petroleum, the past few hundred million years, the equivalent of around 10 23 J of chemical energy have been 'banked' by Earth processes. As you have seen in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 carbon is added to these reservoirs continually, at a rate today that is equivalent to about 5 × 10 17 J yr −1 . That rate of growth represents roughly a mere thousandth of present world energy demand.

Question 13

If the consumption of energy from all primary sources in 2002 were 451 EJ, how long would the fossil fuel energy 'bank' last at that rate of consumption?

The fossil fuel energy 'bank' would last (10 23 J)/ (4.51 × 10 20 J yr −1 ), or about 220 years, at this rate of consumption.

In fact, the 'bank' contains only about 0.04% of the amount of organic carbon preserved in sedimentary rocks. However, that total store of buried organic carbon is finely dispersed, at an average concentration of about 0.4% in sedimentary rocks. At that level, it can never be exploited, either economically or with an efficiency that yields more energy than it consumes.

Although buried organic carbon is widely distributed, concentrations sufficient to constitute resources are rare and very restricted in space and geological time relative to small amounts of organic carbon that are present in many sediments.

5 Nuclear energy

Einstein's famous equation E = mc 2 shows that mass ( m ) and energy ( E ) are proportional to one another. The constant c 2 linking the two is the square of the speed of light c (3 × 10 8 m s −1 ). Implicit in the equation is that mass can be converted into energy , and vice versa, although the conversion of energy into mass occurs only in very powerful particle accelerators. The conversion of matter into energy is the basis of nuclear energy . When unstable nuclei split (nuclear fission) the sum of the masses of the isotopes that are produced is slightly less than that of the original fissile isotope. That tiny mass deficit is converted into a relatively huge amount of energy , because c 2 is a very large number (9 × 10 16 m 2 s −2 ). When isotopes fuse at immense temperatures in the interiors of stars, the product again has lower mass than the original isotopes. So both nuclear fission and fusion potentially produce energy that can be exploited, but in both cases the phenomena have to be artificially induced.

The 'fuel' for nuclear fission occurs naturally in the Earth's crust in the form of unstable isotopes of uranium and thorium, added to by other isotopes that are formed artificially inside nuclear reactors. Note that uranium and thorium isotopes naturally break down by emission of various particles (helium nuclei and electrons), as a result of which their 'daughter' isotopes have lower atomic masses and numbers. Some of the 'daughter' isotopes are also unstable and undergo radioactive decay, which eventually results in the formation of several stable isotopes of the element lead. Such radioactive decay is not the same as nuclear fission and occurs at a constant pace. Radioactive decay also releases energy , but at an amount far lower per decayed atom than in nuclear fission. That energy continually heats the Earth's interior ( Section 3.3 ) and is the source of geothermal energy .

Potential 'fuel' for nuclear fusion also occurs naturally in the form of an isotope of hydrogen that includes a neutron as well as a proton in its nucleus, instead of the single proton. This isotope ( 2 H or deuterium ) occurs in tiny amounts in water, and was produced originally by processes early in the history of the Universe.

6 Concentrating, storing and transporting energy

The Earth is awash with energy from sources other than fossil fuels ; thousands of times as much as humans use. Why then do we need to use any other energy supply?

6.1 Concentrating energy

As far as human needs are concerned, there is a marked difference between 'dilute' and 'concentrated' energy . Water vapour in the atmosphere, for example, has considerable potential energy since a huge mass globally (about 13 × 10 15 kg—Smith, 2005) is held high above the Earth's surface. But this potential energy represents a very dilute form of energy ; falling rain could not turn a water wheel. It is only when energy can be 'concentrated' that it can be put to good use — in this case by rainfall accumulating in streams and rivers, or being stored in reservoirs at high elevations. The concentration can be expressed colloquially in terms of energy density , which is the amount of energy stored by a resource divided by the volume of the space that it occupies.

Some forms of energy are relatively difficult to concentrate, so have a low energy density , whereas others are easier to concentrate. The energy contained in moving air is rather difficult to concentrate; windmills and wind farms have to be sited where natural factors enhance wind speed and constancy. Solar power has a low energy density , so requires large collecting devices. The potential energy of rain is naturally concentrated and held in mountain lakes; we concentrate this energy artificially when rainwater is stored in a reservoir. This emphasises why fossil fuels are so valuable as they represent naturally concentrated forms of the solar energy that reached the Earth millions of years ago.

The ultimate form of concentrated energy is matter itself, in the form of nuclear energy .

6.2 Storing and transporting energy

To be useful to us, energy must be available where and when we want it, and in a form and in amounts we can handle. Severe weather systems concentrate natural energy wonderfully, but hurricanes associated with storm- force winds, driving heavy rain, thunder and lightning wreak havoc rather than top up our energy supplies.

Storing most forms of energy is very difficult. We have to re-heat our homes daily in the wintertime because they constantly lose heat, despite our attempts to insulate them. We cannot store light when the Sun goes down; we have to turn electricity into light until the Sun reappears. In fact, only two forms of energy are truly storable. Potential energy can be stored almost indefinitely by mechanical means, as in springs or lifted weights — the basis of clocks. Far more convenient is storage that exploits chemical energy — batteries, or even better, chemical fuel.

Fuels are compounds whose combustion liberates a large amount of energy per unit mass: they commonly have a high energy density . Wood was the major fuel before the Industrial Revolution, and remains the most important fuel for many non-industrial societies today. Wood, and other plants that can be used as fuels , produce biomass energy . As industry develops, energy demands grow and fuels with higher convertible energy content per unit mass are needed. Modern energy supply is centred on the fossil fuels : coal, oil and gas ( Figure 1.4 ). Note that although the isotopes whose fission or fusion forms the basis for nuclear power are not burnt, they are generally known as nuclear fuels .

A further advantage of fuels as energy sources is their transportability, so that conversion can take place on selected sites or in mobile units. Highly concentrated fuels require less energy to transport than those with a low energy density but since lots of energy can be released accidentally from badly handled concentrated energy sources, care has to be taken to ensure that transport is safe. For some applications, such as cars, generating energy from stored chemical energy has the advantage of the ease of transport of small amounts of fuel.

Fossil fuels therefore represent extremely useful energy sources because they have a high energy density , they store energy for very long periods to be used when needed, and they can be transported simply and relatively safely.

A very important form of energy transport in developed countries is the generation and transmission of electricity. Figure 1.6 shows that around one-sixth of energy used in the UK is distributed as electricity via the National Grid. Since every primary energy source is used to some extent in generating electricity, a brief introduction to generators is useful ( Box 1.2 ).

Box 1.2 Electricity generation

By far the greatest contribution to electricity supplies is made by exploiting the way in which an electrical current is induced in a conductor when it is moved through a magnetic field. Most such generators are made up of a cylindrical coil of conducting wire that is rotated between extremely strong magnets, so that an electrical current is induced in the coil ( Figure 1.13a ). There are other means, such as fuel cells and photovoltaic devices, but generators are common to conversion of most kinds of primary energy . Driving the rotation depends on harnessing energy released from primary energy sources through a specific form of engine, the turbine.

A turbine is a rotary engine driven by a moving fluid. A propeller on a boat or an aircraft, or a jet turbine, provides a driving force because of the design of its blades. A turbine used in electricity generation simply exploits the reverse of this effect. Moving 'fluid' provides the force that spins the turbine. The rotation transmits energy , and for electricity generation it is connected to a rotary generator. The simplest turbines have one moving part, as in windmills or water wheels ( Figure 1.13b ).

Electricity generation from flowing water or wind exploits the kinetic energy of the fluid. However, from the 19th century to the present day, the most common turbines used to generate electricity have been driven by high-pressure steam created by boiling water using coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or geothermal energy (Section 5.1). In some electricity generating stations the moving fluid is the gas produced by burning oil or natural gas, in the manner of a jet turbine, thereby missing out the intermediary of steam and the associated inefficiency. The principle of a steam turbine is somewhat different from those used to harness the energy of wind and flowing water, and so too is its design ( Figure 1.13c ). Steam contains energy in three forms: as heat; as the energy needed to change water's state from liquid to gas ( latent heat of vaporisation ); and as the energy bound up by the compression of a pressurised gas. The last is a form of potential energy , released when the pressure drops, as in the case of the air in a tyre when its valve is opened. Together, these three forms of contained energy are known as the enthalpy . The enthalpy of a gas is given by:

where H is enthalpy (in J), U is heat (including latent heat of vaporisation; in J), P is pressure (in pascals or kg m −1 s −2 ) and V is the volume of steam (in m 3 ). (Note that pressure times volume — in kg m 2 s −2 —gives units in joules.) It is the PV term that provides much of the driving force for a steam turbine, because the pressure gradient across the turbine leads to rapid expansion of the steam and therefore high speed in the flow. Many steam engines, including the original piston engines invented in the early Industrial Revolution, also exploit the latent heat of vaporisation, by condensing the steam at the outlet of the turbine. The change of state from gas to liquid results in a near vacuum that increases the pressure gradient across the turbine — condensation adds 'suction' to the 'blowing' by steam. Latent heat is released and this can be 'recycled' in the generating system.

The late-20th century saw an increased reliance on electricity generation that uses natural gas as a fuel. Gas turbines are similar in design to those used in aircraft jet turbines. Turbines rotated by combustion gases have two important advantages over steam turbines: they are more efficient, and can be turned on and off very quickly, thereby suiting variable demand for electricity. Natural gas also contains a lower proportion of carbon than coal and oil, and so less carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere.

7 Renewable and non-renewable energy supplies

Energy resources can be considered in a completely different way from their energy density — whether or not they are renewable. Some energy sources incorporate energy released comparatively recently from the Sun and are replenished naturally over a timescale of days to tens of years. Therefore solar, wind and wave energy resources, being continually available, are renewable energy supplies. Other examples of renewables are geothermal and tidal energy sources.

Other potential energy resources are legacies of solar power received and converted into stored energy in the geological past; coal is a good example. Coal seams are replenished naturally over a timescale of millions of years. Once coal began to be exploited faster than its rate of creation it became non-renewable and its use at current levels cannot be sustained.

Question 14

Which energy sources mentioned so far are renewable, and which are nonrenewable on the scale of a human lifetime?

Energy sources such as solar, biofuels, hydro, wind, waves, tides, and geothermal are continually replenished, so they are renewable on this timescale. The fossil fuels and nuclear energy are not being replaced on this timescale, so they are non-renewable.

All fossil fuels are slowly being renewed by the death, burial and decay of present plant and animal life, but at an extremely slow rate compared with the pace of human economic activity. The Earth's natural systems may eventually replace all the fossil fuels that humanity has already used, but how and when that might become possible is impossible to judge.

Likewise, only extremely slow geological processes renew fissionable nuclear fuels . The instability of naturally radioactive isotopes such as uranium and thorium, which formed in stars much larger than the Sun during the moment of their destruction as supernovae, results in them gradually diminishing with time. Replenishing the ores of uranium and thorium by geological processes takes hundreds of million years. So, nuclear fuels too are non-renewable. Even the hydrogen isotope deuterium, which is potentially a vast source of energy from thermonuclear fusion, is a 'one-off' legacy resource and is finite. But even so its potential vastly outstrips that of all other non-renewable energy sources.

The distinction between renewables and non-renewables is one of timescale and energy concentration, but it is critical for human society. Think of renewable energy resources as income , and non-renewable energy resources as inheritance . We 'spend' the Earth's energy resources constantly for cooking, travelling, heating or cooling buildings, manufacturing and in many other ways. At present, modern industrial societies generate energy mostly from fossil fuels , thereby depleting an inheritance accumulated from millions of years of 'banked' solar energy and internal heat. Much less energy is currently generated from day-to-day energy 'income', i.e. from renewables: the global energy 'accountancy' has become unbalanced and unsustainable.

Setting aside the environmentally damaging effects of burning fossil fuels , such as atmospheric pollution and global warming, sooner or later present energy generating policy will deplete our stock of fossil fuel. To stay solvent in energy terms over the long term leaves no choice other than to transfer society's day-to-day energy supply to renewable sources, or return to a low- energy society. The other alternative is harnessing energy from nuclear fission or fusion, but that too cannot last indefinitely. This book aims to provide a scientific basis to understanding some of the decisions that will need to be made to enable humanity to stay 'solvent' in energy terms. Yet you will no doubt be well aware that such decisions are not those of individuals, but are presently dominated by economic and political factors, irrespective of the scientific facts.

Energy is the basis of modern society. Other physical resources can only be effectively extracted, processed and transported if there is a ready supply of energy at the right price.

Energy is defined as the capacity to do work , while work is a force acting on an object that causes its displacement (i.e. force × distance). Both energy and work are measured in joules or, more fundamentally, in newton metres. Power (measured in watts, i.e. joules per second) is the rate of doing work or the rate at which energy changes from one form to another.

All conversions of energy are inefficient to varying degrees, so that primary energy consumption far exceeds the useful work that it makes possible.

The Sun is by far the most important source of natural energy on Earth. The solar radiation that reaches the Earth contributes to winds, waves, atmospheric water circulation, atmospheric heating and surface water evaporation, and to organic activity.

The gravitational attractions of the Sun and the Moon combine to produce tides, and rocks in the Earth's interior also generate heat by the decay of radioactive isotopes in them. These are small but potentially exploitable sources of energy .

Fossil fuels are ultimately derived from solar radiation, through photosynthesis and the carbon cycle .

Most of the world's carbon is locked within carbonate rocks. A large amount of carbon also exists as preserved organic carbon, which includes fossil fuels .

Green plants use solar radiation to build carbohydrates and plant tissue from carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans, in a process known as photosynthesis . Photosynthesis releases oxygen into the atmosphere and oceans. When they respire, organisms use oxygen to generate energy from food, releasing carbon dioxide and water vapour back into the atmosphere and oceans. These respiratory reactions are the reverse of photosynthesis .

Concentrations of marine phytoplankton occur in the upper sunlit layers of the oceans where upwelling currents bring nutrients. These form the basis of the marine food chain. There is only a build-up of carbon within marine sediments where there is an adequate supply of organic material and where physical conditions are right for its preservation.

Nuclear energy is derived from the conversion of matter into energy and has a very high energy density .

The world is plentifully supplied with solar-derived energy , but most of it is not in a sufficiently concentrated form to be useful to modern industrial society.

Fuels are of immense value because they are concentrated sources of energy (they have a high energy density ) that can easily be stored, transported and used at will. At the current level of technology, energy transport has become an essential aspect of energy use, dominated by electricity. The most convenient way of electricity generation is through the conversion of mechanical motion — most usually produced today from thermal energy — using generators driven by turbines.

Energy sources can be subdivided into renewables, like solar, wind and wave power , and non-renewables, like peat, coal, oil and gas. Renewables are effectively everlasting, but non-renewables are finite.

Click on the link below to open the course glossary.

Open glossary now...

Acknowledgements

Course image: Adrian S Jones in Flickr made available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence .

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this course:

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions ) and is used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons licence ).

Figure 1.2 National Railway Museum/Science and Society Picture Library

Figure 1.5a BP (2004) Statistical Review of World Energy 2004

Figure 1.5b Adapted from NASA material

Figure 1.8 Martin Bond/Science Photo Library

Figure 1.12 NASA's Earth Observatory

Figure 1.13b © David Sanger Photography/Alamy

Figure 1.13c Steve Allen/Science Photo Library

The information in this book has been obtained from a wide range of sources, too numerous to mention. However, specific reference is made in the text to the following:

Boyle, G., Everett, B. and Ramage, J. (eds) (2003) Energy Systems and Sustainability, Oxford University Press and The Open University.

Statistics on UK transport. Available online from Department for Transport Statistics [last accessed December 2007].

Harris, S., Bridgeman, F. and O'Reilly, T. (eds) (2002) Britain's Offshore Oil and Gas, UK Offshore Operators Association. Available online at Oil & Gas UK [last accessed April 2011].

Smith, S. (2005) Water: The Vital Resource (Book 3 of S278 Earth's Physical Resources: Origin, Use and Environmental Impact), The Open University, Milton Keynes.

© Skyscan/Science Photo Library

All other material contained within this course originated at the Open University.

This resource was created by the Open University and released in OpenLearn as part of the 'C-change in GEES' project exploring the open licensing of climate change and sustainability resources in the Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. The C-change in GEES project was funded by HEFCE as part of the JISC/HE Academy UKOER programme and coordinated by the GEES Subject Centre.

Don't miss out:

If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University - www.open.edu/ openlearn/ free-courses

Copyright © 2016 The Open University

• AQA Synergy

Energy resources - AQA Synergy Types of energy resource

Every person, animal and device transfers energy. Much of that energy is supplied by electricity, which must be generated from other energy stores. Some of these are renewable but most are non-renewable.

Part of Combined Science Guiding Spaceship Earth towards a sustainable future

Types of energy resource

Renewable and non-renewable resources.

Renewable resources are replenished either by:

• human action - eg trees cut down for biofuel are replaced by planting new trees
• natural processes - eg water let through a dam for hydroelectricity close hydroelectric Electricity generated from water. is replaced through the water cycle close water cycle The continuous movement of water on, above and below the Earth.

A non-renewable energy resource is one with a finite close finite Something that has a limited number of uses before it is depleted. For example, oil is a finite resource. amount. It will eventually run out when all reserves have been used up.

Different energy resources

The table below shows the main features of the most common energy resources used today.

More guides on this topic

• Carbon chemistry - AQA Synergy
• Material resources - AQA Synergy
• Sample questions - guiding Earth towards a sustainable future - AQA

Related links

• Combined Science Exam practice
• Personalise your Bitesize!
• Jobs that use Science
• BBC: Science and Environment
• Save My Exams Subscription
• Tassomai Subscription
• Headsqueeze
• Revision Buddies Subscription

• Natural Sources Of Energy

Sources of Energy

The sun is the main source of energy on Earth. Other energy sources include coal, geothermal energy, wind energy, biomass, petrol, nuclear energy, and many more. Energy is classified into various types based on sustainability as renewable sources of energy and non-renewable sources of energy.

What Is Energy?

The classical description of energy is the ability of a system to perform work, but as energy exists in so many forms, it is hard to find one comprehensive definition. It is the property of an object that can be transferred from one object to another or converted to different forms but cannot be created or destroyed. There are numerous sources of energy. In the next few sections, let us discuss the about different sources of energy in detail.

Sources Of Energy

Sources of energy can be classified into:

• Renewable Sources
• Non-renewable Sources

Renewable sources of energy are available plentiful in nature and are sustainable. These resources of energy can be naturally replenished and are safe for the environment.

Examples of renewable sources of energy are : Solar energy, geothermal energy, wind energy, biomass, hydropower and tidal energy.

A non-renewable resource is a natural resource that is found underneath the earth. These type of energy resources do not replenish at the same speed at which it is used. They take millions of years to replenish. The main examples of non-renewable resources are coal, oil and natural gas.

Examples of non-renewable sources of energy are: Natural gas, coal, petroleum, nuclear energy and hydrocarbon gas liquids.

Difference between Renewable and Non-renewable Sources of Energy

Natural sources of energy.

During the stone age, it was wood. During the iron age, we had coal. In the modern age, we have fossil fuels like petroleum and natural gas. So how do we choose the source of energy?

Good sources of energy should have the following qualities:

• Optimum heat production per unit of volume/mass used
• Easy to transport
• Least Polluting

Types of Natural Sources of Energy

There are two types of natural sources of energy classified by their popularity and use,

• Conventional Sources of Energy
• Non-Conventional Sources of Energy

Difference between Conventional and Non-conventional Sources of Energy

In this article, you learned about natural resources, energy sources, and what makes a good source of energy. Explore more such articles at BYJU’S, which provides detailed solutions to the questions of NCERT Book for the energy source so that one can compare their answers with the sample answers given for this chapter.

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

What sources of energy are renewable.

• Biomass energy
• Wind energy
• Tidal energy
• Hydro energy

What is the main source of energy in India?

What are the sources of energy in india.

Following are the sources of energy in India:

• Natural gas
• Thermal energy
• Mineral oil

Can any source of energy be pollution-free?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of wind power.

• There are no harmful gases released into the environment.
• It is a way for the generation of revenue in the local communities.
• It is one of the clean sources of energy.

Disadvantages:

• The storage of energy needs to be improved.
• The initial setup requires a lot of investment.
• Numerous lands will be used up.

List the examples of sources of energy

• Biofuel energy
• Geothermal energy
• Solar energy
• Nuclear energy

Watch the video and find out conservation measures we can take to save the natural resources depleting at an alarming rate.

Stay tuned with BYJU’S for more such interesting articles. Also, register to “BYJU’S – The Learning App” for loads of interactive, engaging Physics-related videos and unlimited academic assistance.

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Physics related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Energy Resources, Economics and Environment

Note: This exam date is subjected to change based on seat availability. You can check final exam date on your hall ticket.

Page Visits

Course layout, books and references, instructor bio.

Prof. Rangan Banerjee

Course certificate.

DOWNLOAD APP

SWAYAM SUPPORT

Please choose the SWAYAM National Coordinator for support. * :

Environmental Studies

Lesson 6. ENERGY RESOURCES

• The very original form of energy technology probably was the fire, which produced heat and the early man used it for cooking and heating purposes.
• Wind and hydropower has also been used. Invention of steam engineers replaced the burning of wood by coal and coal was further replaced by oil.
• The oil producing has started twisting arms of the developed as well as developing countries by dictating the prices of oil and other petroleum products.
• Energy resources are primarily divided into two categories viz. renewable and non-renewable sources.
• Renewable energy resources must be preferred over the non-renewable resources.
• It is inevitable truth that now there is an urgent need of thinking in terms of alternative sources of energy, which are also termed as non-conventional energy sources which include:
• Solar energy needs equipments such as solar heat collectors, solar cells, solar cooker, solar water heater, solar furnace and solar power plants .
• Wind energy
• Hydropower, Tidal energy, ocean thermal energy, geothermal energy, biomass, biogas, biofuels etc.
• The non renewable energy sources include coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear energy.
• 69% is from coal (thermal power),
• 25% is from hydel power,
• 4% is from diesel and gas,
• 2% is from nuclear power, and
• Less than 1% from non- conventional sources like solar, wind, ocean, biomass, etc.
• Accelerated exploitation of domestic conventional energy resources, viz., oil, coal, hydro and nuclear power;
• Intensification of exploration to achieve indigenous production of oil and gas;
• Efficient management of demand of oil and other forms of energy;
• To formulate efficient methods of energy conservation and management;
• Optimisation of utilisation of existing capacity in the country
• Development and exploitation of renewable sources of energy to meet energy requirements of rural communities;
• Organisation of training for personnel engaged at various levels in the energy sector.
• Government private partnership to exploit natural energy resources
• The resources that can be replenished through rapid natural cycles are known as renewable resource.
• These resources are able to increase their abundance through reproduction and utilization of simple substances.
• Examples of renewable resources are plants (crops and forests),and animals who are being replaced from time to time because they have the power of reproducing and maintain life cycles.
• Some examples of renewable resources though they do not have life cycle but can be recycled are wood and wood-products, pulp products, natural rubber, fibres (e.g. cotton, jute, animal wool, silk and synthetic fibres) and leather.
• In addition to these resources, water and soil are also classified as renewable resources. Solar energy although having a finite life, as a special case, is considered as a renewable resource in as much as solar stocks is inexhaustible on the human scale.
• The resources that cannot be replenished through natural processes are known as non-renewable resources.
• These are available in limited amounts, which cannot be increased. These resources include fossil fuels (petrol, coal etc.), nuclear energy sources (e.g. uranium, thorium, etc). metals (iron, copper, gold, silver, lead, zinc etc.), minerals and salts (carbonates, phosphates, nitrates etc.).
• Once a non-renewable resource is consumed, it is gone forever. Then we have to find a substitute for it or do without it.
• Non-renewable resources can further be divided into two categories, viz. Recyclable and non-recyclable

Current course

22 February - 28 February

1 March - 7 March

8 March - 14 March

15 March - 21 March

22 March - 28 March

29 March - 4 April

5 April - 11 April

12 April - 18 April

19 April - 25 April

26 April - 2 May

• Humanities and Social Sciences
• NOC:Energy Resources, Economics and Environment (Video) 
• Co-ordinated by : IIT Bombay
• Available from : 2019-11-13
• Intro Video
• Lecture 1A: Energy Flow Diagram
• Lecture 1B: Global Trends in Energy Use
• Lecture 1C: Energy Use in India: Some Calculations
• Lecture 2A: Energy and Environment
• Lecture 2B: The Kaya Identity
• Lecture 2C: Emission Factor
• Lecture 7: Energy and Quality of Life
• Lecture 8: Energy Inequality
• Lecture 9: Energy Security
• Lecture 10: Introduction to Country Energy Balance assignment
• Lecture 11: Energy balance of Japan
• Lecture 12: Energy balance of Australia
• Lecture 13: Energy balance of Mexico
• Lecture 14: Energy Economics - Part 1
• Lecture 15: Energy Economics - Part 2
• Lecture 16: Energy Economics - Part 3
• Lecture 17: Energy Economics - Tutorial
• Lecture 18: Energy resources- Part 1
• Lecture 19: Energy resources- Part 2
• Lecture 20: Renewable Energy Sources- Part 1
• Lecture 21: Renewable Energy Sources- Part 2
• Lecture 22: Materials for Energy
• Lecture 23: Non Renewable Resource Economics Part-1
• Lecture 24: Non Renewable Resource Economics Part-2
• Lecture 25: Non Renewable Resource Economics Part-3
• Lecture 26: Preferences and Utility
• Lecture 27: Utility and Social Choice - Part 1
• Lecture 28: Utility and Social Choice - Part 2
• Lecture 29: Utility and Social Choice - Part 3
• Lecture 30: Utility and Social Choice - Part 4
• Lecture 31: Revision Paper-1 (Part 1)
• Lecture 32: Public and Private Good/Bads
• Lecture 33: Aggregation of Demand Curves
• Lecture 34: Externalities
• Lecture 35: Revision Paper-1 (Part 2)
• Lecture 36: Revision paper-1 (Part 3)
• Lecture 37: Energy Project Financing - Part 1
• Lecture 38: Energy Project Financing - Part 2
• Lecture 39: Energy Project Financing - Tutorial
• Lecture 40: Input Output Analysis - Part 1
• Lecture 41: Input Output Analysis - Part 2
• Lecture 42: Input Output Analysis - Part 3
• Lecture 43: Input Output Analysis - Tutorial
• Lecture 44: Primary Energy Analysis- Part 1
• Lecture 45: Primary Energy Analysis- Part 2
• Lecture 46: Net Energy Analysis-Part 1
• Lecture 47: Net Energy Analysis-Part 2
• Lecture 48: Net Energy Analysis-Part 3
• Lecture 49: Net Energy Analysis- Part 4
• Lecture 50: Energy Policy- Part 1
• Lecture 51: Energy Policy-Part 2
• Lecture 52: Energy Policy Examples-Part 1
• Lecture 53: Energy Policy Examples-Part 2
• Lecture 54: Revision Paper-2 (Part 1)
• Lecture 55: Revision Paper-2 (Part 2)
• Lecture 56: Future Energy Systems
• Live Session 09-02-2021
• Live Session 05-04-2021
• Watch on YouTube
• Assignments
• Download Videos
• Transcripts

Javascript Required!

Javascript is required for this site.

Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle

(Updated December 2021)

• A significant increase in uranium mine production is planned.
• There is increasing international involvement in parts of Russia's fuel cycle.
• A major Russian political and economic objective is to increase exports, particularly for front-end fuel cycle services through Tenex, as well as nuclear power plants.

Russia uses about 5500 tonnes of natural uranium per year.

There is high-level concern about the development of new uranium deposits, and a Federal Council meeting in April 2015 agreed to continue the federal financing of exploration and estimation works in Vitimsky Uranium Region in Buryatia. It also agreed to financing construction of the engineering infrastructure of Mine No. 6 of Priargunsky Industrial Mining and Chemical Union (PIMCU). The following month the Council approved key support measures including the introduction of a zero rate for mining tax and property tax; simplification of the system of granting subsoil use rights; inclusion of the Economic Development of the Far East and Trans-Baikal up to 2018 policy in the Federal Target Program; and the development of infrastructure in Krasnokamensk.

In June 2015 Rosgeologia signed a number of agreements to expedite mineral exploration in Russia, including one with Rosatom. It was established in July 2011 by presidential decree and consists of 38 enterprises located in 30 regions across Russia, but uranium is a minor part of its interests.

Uranium resources and mining

Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 9% of world reasonably assured resources plus inferred resources up to $130/kg – 505,900 tonnes U (2014 Red Book ). Rosatom reported ARMZ resources as 517,000 tU in September 2015, mostly requiring underground mining. Historic uranium exploration expenditure is reported to have been about $4 billion. The Federal Natural Resources Management Agency (Rosnedra) reported that Russian uranium reserves grew by 15% in 2009, particularly through exploration in the Urals and Kalmykia Republic, north of the Caspian Sea.

Uranium production has varied from 2870 to 3560 tU/yr since 2004, and in recent years has been supplemented by that from Uranium One Kazakh operations, giving 7629 tU in 2012. In 2006 there were three mining projects in Russia, since then others have been under construction and more projected, as described below. Cost of production in remote areas such as Elkon is said to be US$ 60-90/kg. Spending on new ARMZ domestic projects in 2013 was RUR 253.5 million, though in November 2013 all Rosatom investment in mining expansion was put on hold due to low uranium prices.

Plans announced in 2006 for 28,600 t/yr U 3 O 8 output by 2020, 18,000t of this from Russia* and the balance from Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Mongolia have since taken shape, though difficulties in starting new Siberian mines makes the 18,000 t target unlikely. Three uranium mining joint ventures were established in Kazakhstan with the intention of providing 6000 tU/yr for Russia from 2007: JV Karatau, JV Zarechnoye and JV Akbastau (see below and Kazakhstan paper).

* See details for April 2008 ARMZ plans. In 2007 TVEL applied for the Istochnoye, Kolichkanskoye, Dybrynskoye, Namarusskoye and Koretkondinskoye deposits with 30,000 tU in proved and probable reserves close to the Khiagda mine in Buryatia. From foreign projects: Zarechnoye 1000 t, Southern Zarechnoye 1000 t, Akbastau 3000 t (all in Kazakhstan); Aktau (Uzbekistan) 500 t, Novo-Konstantinovskoye (Ukraine) 2500 t. In addition Russia would like to participate in development of Erdes deposit in Mongolia (500t) as well as in Northern Kazakhstan deposits Semizbai (Akmolonsk Region) and Kosachinoye.

*(this chart is now slightly out of date but still gives a general picture)

AtomRedMetZoloto (ARMZ) is the state-owned company which took over Tenex and TVEL uranium exploration and mining assets in 2007-08, as a subsidiary of Atomenergoprom (79.5% owned). It inherited 19 projects with a total uranium resource of about 400,000 tonnes, of which 340,000 tonnes are in Elkonskiy uranium region and 60,000 tonnes in Streltsovskiy and Vitimskiy regions. The rights to all these resources had been transferred from Rosnedra , the Federal Agency for Subsoil Use under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment .

JSC ARMZ Uranium Holding Company (as it is now known) became the mining division of Rosatom in 2008, responsible for all Russian uranium mine assets and also Russian shares in foreign joint ventures. In 2008, 78.6% of JSC Priargunsky, all of JSC Khiagda and 97.85% of JSC Dalur was transferred to ARMZ. In March 2009 the Federal Financial Markets Service of Russia registered RUR 16.4 billion of additional shares in ARMZ placed through a closed subscription to pay for uranium mining assets, on top of a RUR 4 billion issued in mid 2008 to pay for the acquisition of Priargunsky, Khiagda and Dalur. In November 2009 SC Rosatom paid a further RUR 33 billion for ARMZ shares, increasing its equity to 76.1%.

In 2009 and 2010 ARMZ took a 51% share in Canadian-based Uranium One Inc, paying for this with $610 million in cash and by exchange of assets in Kazakhstan: 50% of JVs Akbastau, Karatau and Zarechnoye, mining the Budenovskoye and Zarechnoye deposits. (An independent financial advisor put the value of ARMZ's stakes in the Akbastau and Zarechnoye JVs at $907.5 million.) Uranium One has substantial production capacity in Kazakhstan, including now those two mines with Karatau, Akdala, South Inkai and Kharasan, as well as small prospects in USA and Australia (sold in 2015). In 2013 ARMZ completed the purchase of outstanding shares in Uranium One Inc, and it became a full subsidiary of ARMZ. JSC Uranium One Group (U1 Group) is from December 2016 a 78.4% owned subsidiary of Atomenergoprom and apparently separate from ARMZ.

Following this, late in 2013 Rosatom established Uranium One Holding NV  (U1H) as its global growth platform for all international uranium mining assets belonging to Russia, with headquarters in Amsterdam. It lists assets in Kazakhstan, USA and Tanzania, as well as owning and managing Rosatom’s stake in Uranium One Inc. In 2013 it accounted for 5086 tU production at average cash cost of $16/lb U 3 O 8 , and reported 229,453 tU measured, indicated and inferred resources (attributable share). In 2014 it produced 4857 tU and listed resources of 177,000 tU. The company plans to extend its interests into rare earths. Its ‘strategic partner’ is JSC NAC Kazatomprom.

ARMZ remains responsible for uranium mining in Russia. At the end of 2013 it was 82.75% owned by Rosatom and 17.25% TVEL. Exploration expenditure has nearly doubled in two years to about US$ 52 million in 2008. In 2013 the government approved an exploration budget of RUR 14 billion ($450 million) through to 2020, principally in the Far East and Northern Siberia. Deposits suitable for ISL mining will be sought in the Transurals, Transbaikal and Kalmykyia. Other work will be in the Urals, Siberian, Far East Federal Districts (Zauralsky, Streltsovsky, Vitimsky and Vostochno-Zabaikalsky, and Elkonsky ore regions).

Rosgeologia, the Russian state-run geological exploration services company set up in 2011, has identified "promising" uranium deposits in the North-West Federal District of Russia following completion of a survey of the Kuol-Panayarvinskaya area on the border of the Murmansk region and the Republic of Karelia. It signed an agreement with Rosatom in 2015 to focus on uranium.

CJSC Rusburmash (RBM) is the exploration subsidiary of ARMZ. VNIPIPT is the subsidiary responsible for R&D and engineering of mining and processing plants.

In December 2010 ARMZ made a $1.16 billion takeover bid for Australia's Mantra Resources Ltd with a prospective Mkuju River project in southern Tanzania, which was expected in production about 2013 at 1400 tU/yr, but is now deferred. This is now under U1H.

Domestic mining

In 2009 the government accepted Rosatom’s proposal for ARMZ and Elkonsky Mining and Metallurgical Combine to set up the “open-type joint stock company” EGMK-Project. The state’s contribution through Rosatom to the EGMK-Project authorized capital will be RUR 2.657 billion, including RUR 2.391 billion in 2009 and RUR 0.266 billion in 2010. EGMK-Project is being set up to draw up the project and design documentation for Elkonsky Mining and Metallurgical Combine (see below).

The Russian Federation’s main uranium deposits are in four districts:

• The Trans-Ural district in the Kurgan region between Chelyabinsk and Omsk, with the Dalur ISL mine.
• Streltsovskiy district in the Transbaikal or Chita region of SE Siberia near the Chinese and Mongolian borders, served by Krasnokamensk and with major underground mines.
• The Vitimsky district in Buryatia about 570 km northwest of Krasnokamensk, with the Khiagda ISL mine.
• The more recently discovered remote Elkon district in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) some 1200 km north-northeast of the Chita region.

Present production by ARMZ is principally from the Streltsovskiy district, where major uranium deposits were discovered in 1967, leading to large-scale mining, originally with few environmental controls. These are volcanogenic caldera-related deposits. Krasnokamensk is the main town serving the mines.

In 2008 ARMZ said that it intended to triple production to 10,300 tU per year by 2015, with some help from Cameco, Mitsui and local investors. ARMZ planned to invest RUR 203 billion (US$ 6.1billion) in the development of uranium mining in Russia in 2008-2015. It aimed for 20,000 tU per year by 2024. Total cost was projected at RUR 67 billion ($2 billion), mostly at Priargunsky, with RUR 4.8 billion ($144 million) there by end of 2009 including a new $30 million, 500 tonne per day sulfuric acid plant commissioned in 2009, replacing a 1976 acid plant.

Russian uranium mining

Source: 2016 ‘Red Book’ except Olovskaya and Lunnoye.

Russian uranium production, tonnes U

Trans-Ural, Kurgan region

A modest level of production is from Dalur in the Trans-Ural Kurgan region. This is a low-cost ($40/kg) acid in situ leach (ISL) operation in sandstones. About 1350 km east of Moscow, Uksyanskoye is the town supporting the Dalur mine. ARMZ’s 2008 plan had production at Dalur by acid ISL increasing from 350 to 800 tU/yr by 2019 (expanding from the Dalmatovskoye field in the Zauralsk uranium district to Khokhlovskoye in the Shumikhinsky district, then Dobrovolnoye in the Zverinogolovsky district). In 2014 JSC Dalur completed further exploration of the Khokhlovskoye deposit and increased its resources from 4700 to 5500 tonnes. A mill upgrade was started in 2016. More than half of 2016 production was from the Ust-Uksyansky part of Dalmatovskoye field.

In 2016 geological exploration at the Dobrovolnoye deposit was advanced, and a permit for development was received in June 2017, allowing construction of the pilot plant, which commenced in 2020. Its reserves are quoted as 7067 tU. After pilot operation to 2021, commercial operation is expected to maintain Dalur production at 700 tU per year to about 2025 after Dalmatovskoye and Khokhlovskoye are exhausted, reaching full capacity in 2031.

Transbaikal Chita region, Streltsovskiy district

Here, several underground mines operated by JSC Priargunsky Industrial Mining and Chemical Union ( PIMCU  – 85% ARMZ) supply low-grade ore to a central mill near Krasnokamensk. PIMCU was established in 1968, and produces some other metals than uranium. Since 2008 it has been an ARMZ subsidiary. Historical production from Priargunsky is reported to be 140,000 tU (some from open cut mines) and 2011 known resources (RAR + IR) are quoted as 115,000 tU at 0.159%U. In 2013 ‘reserves’ were quoted by ARMZ at 108,700 tonnes. Production is up to about 3000 tU/yr, about one-tenth of it from heap leaching. In 2015 production was 1977 tU and costs were reduced by 11%, so that it hoped to break even in mid-2016.

The company has six underground mines, most of them operating: Mine #1, Mine #2, Glubokiy Mine, Shakhta 6R, Mine #8 with extraction from Maly Tulukui deposit, and Mine #6 (see below). ARMZ’s 2008 plan called for Priargunsky's production to be expanded from 3000 to 5000 tU/yr by 2020.

Mine #1 production rate was increased in 2016. It is on the opposite side of the Oktyabriski settlement from mine #2 and about 2 km from it.

Mine #2 was making a loss in 2013 due to market conditions, so it was closed in order to concentrate on bringing mine #8 to full production. Stoping operations resumed in February 2015, with production target 130 tU for the year, from average grade 0.15%. It is now known as section 2 of mine #8. Some production has been exported to France, Sweden and Spain.

Mine #8 began producing in 2011, towards phase 1 target capacity of 400 t/yr by the end of 2014. The total cost of development is expected to be RUR 4.8 billion (RUR 3.5 billion for phase 1). Production was increased 22% in 2016.

Mine #6  will access the Argunskoye and Zherlovoye deposits which comprise 35% of the Streltsovskoye reserves of 40,900 tU, with much higher grade (0.3%U) than the rest. Production cost from mine #6 is projected at $90/kgU. Future plans for Priargunsky are focused on development of mine #6, official construction of which commenced in 2018.

Development began in 2009 for stage 1 production from 2015 to reach full capacity in 2019, but this was put on hold in 2013. In March 2015 ARMZ said it hoped to find co-investors in the project, and federal funds might be forthcoming. Then in June 2015 Rosatom’s Investment Committee decided to finance the development. In August 2016 ARMZ said that RUR 27 billion was required to enable 2022 commissioning. In March 2018 a new financing arrangement was announced to the extent of RUR 18.5 billion, with Priargunsky to own 51% of the project and ARMZ 49% directly. Most of the project financing – RUR 16.1 billion – would be from China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), with the balance of RUR 2.5 billion from a new Russia-China Investment Fund for Regional Development (RCIF) “as a first step in widening cooperation” with China. According to the Russian Gazette (quoted by Platts Nuclear Fuel ), CNNC’s investment would give it a 49% stake in the joint venture, entitling it to that proportion of annual production. Construction recommenced in March 2018, aiming for first production in 2023, ramping up to full capacity of 1800 tU/yr by 2026. Rosatom reported that the Mine #6 development project is supervised by the government of Zabaikalsky Krai.

Mine #4. Mining the Tulukuy pit of Mine #4 ceased in 1991 due to low grades, but now low-cost block-type underground leaching is ready to be employed in the pit bottom to recover the remaining 6000 tU. Following this the pit will be filled with low-grade ore for heap leaching.

A re-evaluation of reserves in 2012 suggested that mineable resources apart from Mine #6 amounted to only 32,000 tU. Mine #8 resources were quoted at 12,800 tU in December 2012. In 2014 PIMCU, as part of the Kaldera project, identified four promising areas over 100 sq km in the Streltsovskoye ore field, with resources estimated at 80,000 tU, and they will be explored over 2015-17.

In 2014 PIMCU completed an upgrade of its sulfuric acid plant to take daily production from 400 to 500 tonnes, for use in both the conventional mill and in underground and heap leaching. Also the mill (hydrometallurgical plant) process was improved.

There is a legacy environmental problem at Priargunsky arising from 30 waste rock and low-grade ore dumps as well as tailings. Rehabilitation of waste rock dumps and open pits is proceeding and low-grade ores are being heap leached. Dams and intercepting wells below the tailings dams with hydrogeological monitoring and wastewater treatment is addressing water pollution. Final rehabilitation of the impacted areas will occur after final closure takes place. In 2016 ARMZ announced a new heap leaching initiative for very low-grade ores stockpiled on the surface, to produce 50 to 63 tU/yr.

In 2006 Priargunsky won a tender to develop Argunskoye and Zherlovoye deposits in the Chita region with about 40,000 tU reserves. Dolmatovsk and Khokhlovsk have also been identified as new mines to be developed (location uncertain).

Development of Olovskoye and Gornoye deposits* in the Transbaikal region near Priargunsky towards Khiagda would add 900 tU/yr production for RUR 135 billion ($5.7 billion). Measured resources together are 12,200 tU and inferred resources 1600 tU, all at 0.072% average (JORC-compliant). In 2007 newly-formed ARMZ set up two companies to undertake this, and possibly attract some foreign investment:

• Gornoye Uranium Mining Company (UDK Gornoye) to develop the Gornoye and Berezovoye mines in the Krasnochikoysky and Uletovsky districts in Chita, with underground mining and some heap leach (ore grade 0.226%U) originally to produce 300 tU/yr from 2014, but now anticipating up to 1000 tU/yr from 2025.
• Olovskaya Mining & Chemical Company to develop the Olovskoye deposits in the Chernyshevsk district of Chita region with underground, open cut and heap leach to produce 600 tU/yr from 2016.

The 2016 Red Book noted that UDK Gornoye was undertaking pilot mining project design for the Berezovoye deposit.

* 2006 plans were for 2000t/yr at new prospects in Chita Region and Buryatia (Gornoye, Berezovoye, Olovskoye, Talakanskoye properties etc.), plus some 3000t at new deposits.

Buryatia, Vitimsky district

JSC  Khiagda 's operations are at Vitimsky in Buryatia about 570 km northwest of Krasnokamensk, serving Priargunsky's operations in Chita region, and 140 km north of Chita city. They are starting from a low base – in 2010 production from the Khiagdinskoye ore field was 135 tU, rising to 440 tU in 2013 (fully utilising the pilot plant) and targeting 1000 tU/yr from 2018 with a new plant. These are a low-cost (US$ 70/kgU) acid in situ leach (ISL) operations in sandstones, and comprise the only ISL mine in the world in permafrost. Groundwater temperature is 1-4°C, giving viscosity problems, especially when winter air temperature is -40°C. The main uranium mineralisation is a phosphate, requiring oxidant addition to the acid solution. In the Khiagdinskoye field itself there are eight palaeochannel deposits over 15 x 8 km, at depths of 90 to 280 metres (average 170 m). Single orebodies are up to 4 km long and 15 to 400 m wide, 1 to 20 m thick.

JSC Khiagda has resources of 55,000 tU amenable to ISL mining, with resource potential estimated by Rosatom of 350,000 tU, giving a mine life of over 50 years. In 2015 ‘reserves’ were quoted by ARMZ at 39,300 tonnes U. The 2008 ARMZ plan envisaged production from JSC Khiagda's project increasing to 1800 tU/yr by 2019, but in 2013 the higher target was postponed. The 2018 plan is now 1000 tonnes. In 2014 JSC Khiagda continued construction of the main production facility and on the sulfuric acid plant, the first stage of which was commissioned in September 2015. Its final design capacity is 110,000 t/yr.

JSC Khiagda is currently mining uranium from the Khiagdin and Istochnoy deposits of the Khiagda ore field. Preparatory work for mining operations at the Vershinny deposit is under way. In May 2018, JSC Khiagda announced that engineering and geological surveys ahead of the construction of mining facilities was under way at Kolichikan and Dybryn deposits. The other two fields in the immediate vicinity are Namaru and Tetrakhskoye. All these deposits occur over an area about 50 x 20 km. There are also plans to install plant for extracting rare earth oxides (REO) as by-product. The nearest towns are Romanovka, 133 km north of Chita, and Bagdarin.

Sakha/Yakutia, Elkon district

ARMZ’s long-term hope is development of the massive Elkon project with several mines in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) some 1200 km north-northeast of the Chita region. The Elkon project is in a mountainous region with difficult climate conditions and little infrastructure, making it a challenging undertaking. Production from metasomatite deposits is planned to ramp up to 5000 tU/yr over ten years, for RUR 90.5 billion ($3 billion), and 2020 start up was envisaged, but this is now "after 2030". Elkon is set to become Russia's largest uranium mining complex, based on resources of over 270,000 tU (or 357,000 tU quoted by Rosatom in 2015). It will involve underground mining, radiometric sorting, milling, processing and uranium concentrate production of up to 5000 tU/yr.

Elkon Mining and Metallurgical Combine (EMMC) was set up by ARMZ to develop the substantial Elkonsky deposits. The Elkon MMC project involves the JSC Development Corporation of South Yakutia and aims to attract outside funding to develop infrastructure and mining in a public-private partnership, with ARMZ holding 51%. Foreign equity including from Japan, South Korea and India is envisaged, and in March a joint venture arrangement with India was announced. The Elkon MMC developments are to become “the locomotive of the economic development of the entire region”, building the infrastructure, electricity transmission lines, roads and railways, as well as industrial facilities, from 2010. Of 15 proposed construction sites, three have been tentatively selected: at the mouth of Anbar River, Diksi Village and Ust-Uga Village. The building of four small floating co-generation plants to supply heat and electricity to northern regions of Yakutia is linked with the Elkon project in southern Yakutia.

There are eight deposits in the Elkon project with resources of 320,000 tU* (RAR + IR) at average 0.146%U, with gold by-product: Elkon, Elkon Plateau, Kurung, Neprokhodimoye, Druzhnoye (southern deposits), as well as Yuzhnaya, Severnaya, Zona Interesnaya and Lunnoye (see below). In mid-2010 ARMZ released JORC-compliant resource figures for the five southern deposits: 71,300 tU as measured and indicated resources, and 158,500 tU as inferred resources, averaging 0.143%U. ARMZ pointed out that the resource assessment against international standards will increase the investment attractiveness of EMMC. However, in September 2011 ARMZ said that production costs would be US$ 120-130/kgU, which would be insufficient in the current market, and costs would need to be cut by 15-20%.

* 257,800 tU of this was in the five southern deposits. The 2011 Red Book gives 271,000 tU resources for Elkon, or 319,000 tU in situ.

First production from EMMC was expected in 2015 ramping up to 1000 tU/yr in 2018, 2000 tU/yr in 2020 and 5000 tU/yr by 2024 based on the southern deposits as well as Severnoye and Zona Interesnoye. This schedule has slipped by at least ten years. Also, it is remote, and mining will be underground, incurring significant development costs. ARMZ and EMMC are seeking local government (Sakha) support for construction of main roads and railways to access the Elkon area, and make investment there more attractive.

JSC Lunnoye was set up by ARMZ at the same time as EMMC to develop a small deposit jointly by ARMZ (50.1%) and a gold mining company Zoloto Seligdara as a pilot project to gain practical experience in the region in a polymetallic orebody. Lunnoye is expected in full production in 2016, reaching 100 tU/yr. It has reserves of 800 tU and 13 t gold, and is managed by Zoloto Seligdara. ARMZ in mid 2011 expressed impatience with the rate of development.

Further mine prospects

The Federal Subsoil Resources Management Agency (Rosnedra) was transferring about 100,000 tonnes of uranium resources to miners, notably ARMZ, in 2009-10, and 14 projects, mainly small to medium deposits, were prepared for licensing then. They are located mainly in the Chita (Streltsovskiy district), Trans-Ural (Zauralskiy district) and Buryatia (Vitimskiy district) uranium regions.

The projects prepared for licensing include:

• Chita Oblast – Zherlovskoye, Pyatiletnee, Dalnee and Durulguevskoye.
• Republic of Buratiya – Talakanskoye, Vitlausskoye, Imskoye, Tetrakhskoye, and Dzhilindinskoye.
• Kurgan Oblast – Dobrovolnoye (now licensed).
• Khabarovsk Krai – Lastochka.
• Republic of Tyva – Ust-Uyuk and Onkazhinskoye.
• Republic of Khakassia – Primorskoye.

All together these projects have 76,600 tonnes of reasonably assured and inferred resources, plus 106,000 tonnes of less-certain 'undiscovered' resources.

Rosnedra published a list of deposits in the Republic of Karelia, Irkutsk Region and the Leningrad Region to be offered for tender in 2009. In particular, Tyumenskiy in Mamsko-Chuiskiy District of Irkutsk Region was to be offered for development, followed by Shotkusskaya ploshchad in Lodeinopolsky District of Leningrad Region. In Karelia Salminskaya ploshchad in Pitkyaranskiy District and the Karku deposit were offered. None of these 2009 offerings had reasonably assured or inferred resources quoted, only 'undiscovered' resources in Russia's P1 to P3 categories and it appears that none were taken up. In 2016 the Karelia Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology acknowledged only one uranium deposit “of no commercial interest” at Srednyaya Padma (Medvezhegorsk District) and announced that no mining was planned.

Foreign and private equity in uranium mining

In October 2006 Japan's Mitsui & Co with Tenex agreed to undertake a feasibility study for a uranium mine in eastern Russia to supply Japan. First production from the Yuzhnaya mine in Sakha Republic (Yakutia) is envisaged for 2009. Mitsui had an option to take 25% of the project, and was funding $6 million of the feasibility study. Construction of the Yuzhnaya mine was estimated to cost US$ 245 million, with production reaching 1000 tU/yr by 2015. This would represent the first foreign ownership of a Russian uranium mine. However, according to the 2016 Red Book , Yuzhnaya now appears to be part of the Elkon project (see above).

Following from previous deals with Tenex, in November 2007 Cameco signed an agreement with ARMZ. The two companies are to create joint ventures to explore for and mine uranium in both Russia and Canada, starting with identified deposits in northwestern Russia and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Nunavut.

In addition to ARMZ, private companies may also participate in tenders for mining the smaller and remote uranium deposits being prepared for licensing in Russia. ARMZ is open to relevant investment projects with strategic partners, and Lunnoye deposit is an example where a private company Zoloto Seligdara is partnering with ARMZ.

Mine rehabilitation

Some RUR 340 million (US$10m) is being allocated in the federal budget to rehabilitate the former Almaz mine in Lermontov, Stavropol Territory, in particular Mine 1 on Beshtau Mountain and Mine 2 on Byk Mountain, as well as reclamation of the tailings dump and industrial site of the hydrometallurgical plant. The work will be undertaken by Rosatom organizations under Rostechnadzor. In 2008, rehabilitation of Lermontovsky tailings was included in a federal target program, and over RUR 360 million was allocated for the purpose.

Secondary supplies

Some uranium also comes from reprocessing used fuel from VVER-440, fast neutron and submarine reactors - some 2500 tonnes of uranium has so far been recycled into RBMK reactors.

Also arising from reprocessing used fuels, some 32 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium has been accumulated for use in MOX. Added to this there is now 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium from military stockpiles to be used in MOX fuel for BN-600 and BN-800 fast neutron reactors at Beloyarsk, supported by a $400 million payment from the USA. Some of this weapons plutonium may also be used in the MHR high-temperature gas-cooled reactor under development at Seversk, if this proceeds.

About 28% of the natural uranium feed sent to USEC in USA for enrichment, and contra to the LEU supplied from blended-down Russian military uranium, is being sent to Russia for domestic use. The value of this to mid 2009 was US$ 2.7 billion, according to Rosatom. See also Military Warheads as Source of Fuel paper.

Russia's uranium supply is expected to suffice for at least 80 years, or more if recycling is increased. However, from 2020 it is intended to make more use of fast neutron reactors.

Fuel Cycle Facilities: conversion & enrichment

Many of Russia's fuel cycle facilities were originally developed for military use and hence are located in former closed cities (names bracketed) in the country. In October 2015 the ministry of economic development moved to open four of these which host facilities managed by Rosatom: Novouralsk, Zelenogorsk, Seversk and Zarechny.

In 2009 the conversion and enrichment plants were taken over by the newly-established JSC Enrichment & Conversion Complex, and in 2010 this became part of TVEL , a subsidiary of Atomenergoprom.

Seversk in Western Siberia is a particular focus of new investment, with Rosatom planning to spend a total of RUR100 billion on JSC Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC, SGChE) over 2012-20 to develop its “scientific, technical and production potential in terms of nuclear technology.” SCC comprises several nuclear reactors and plants for conversion, enrichment, separation and reprocessing of uranium and separation of plutonium. In 2012 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 45.5 billion ($1.6 billion) in SCC at Seversk to 2017 for modernising the enrichment capacity and setting up a new conversion plant.

TVEL has decided to rationalize some of its activities at Novouralsk, setting up a scientific and production association (SPA) in 2016 to incorporate Urals Gas Centrifuges Plant (UZGT or UGCP), Novouralsk Scientific and Design Center (NSDC), Uralpribor, and Electrochemical Converters Plant (ECCP).

Russia’s total uranium conversion capacity is about 25,000 tU/yr, but only about half of this is used as of 2013.

TVEL plans to consolidate its conversion capacity at JSC Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) at Seversk near Tomsk, where some capacity already operates. In 2012 Rosatom said it would spend RUR 7.5 billion to set up a new conversion plant at SCC Seversk, to commence operation in 2016. The new plant is designed to have a capacity of 20,000 tU per year from 2020, including 2000 t of recycled uranium. Public hearings on the project were under way in 2014. The 2015 edition of the World Nuclear Association Nuclear Fuel Report gives capacity then as 12,500 tU.

The main operating conversion plant has been at Angarsk near Irkutsk in Siberia, with 18,700 tonnes U/yr capacity – part of TVEL's JSC Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine (AECC). In anticipation of the planned new plant at SCC Seversk however, the Angarsk conversion plant was shut down in April 2014.

TVEL also had conversion capacity at Kirovo-Chepetsky Chemical Combine (KCCC) in Glazoy, which was shut down in the 1990s. Since 2009 this has been a RosRAO site, for clean-up

The Elektrostal conversion plant, 50 km east of Moscow, has 700 tU/yr capacity for reprocessed uranium, initially that from VVER-440 fuel. It is owned by Maschinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) whose Elemash fuel fabrication plant is there. Some conversion of Kazakh uranium has been undertaken for west European company Nukem, and all 960 tonnes of recycled uranium from Sellafield in UK, owned by German and Netherlands utilities, has been converted here. UK-owned recycled uranium has also been sent there.

Uranium enrichment

Four enrichment plants totalling 24 million kg SWU/yr of centrifuge capacity operate at Novo-Uralsk (formerly Sverdlovsk-44) near Yekaterinburg in the Urals, Zelenogorsk (formerly Krasnoyarsk-45), Seversk (formerly Tomsk-7) near Tomsk, and Angarsk near Irkutsk – the last three all in Siberia. The first two service foreign primary demand and Seversk specialises in enriching reprocessed uranium, including that from western Europe. As of early 2011, all are managed by TVEL, rather than Tenex (Techsnabexport).

The Novouralsk (Novo-Uralsk) plant is part of the JSC Urals Electrochemical Combine (UECC) in the Sverdlovsk region. It has operated 8th generation centrifuges since 2003, and 9 th generation units from 2013. The fourth cascade of 9 th generation centrifuges was commissioned in August 2016. TVEL is spending RUR 42 billion on re-equipping the plant with 9 th generation units by 2019. In 2016 it was operating 6 th to 9 th generation centrifuges. The plant can enrich to 30% U-235  (for research and BN fast reactors), the others only to 5% U-235.

The TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment Centre (UEC) bought a 25% share of UECC and became entitled to half its output – up to 5 million SWU/yr (see below). In April 2013 the government commission for control over foreign investments approved this sale.

UECC once claimed 48% of Russian enrichment capacity and 20% of the world’s. Rosatom in 2015 applied to the government to create a territory of priority development (TPD) in Novouralsk, a special economic zone enjoying low taxes, simplified administrative procedures and other benefits.

The Zelenogorsk plant is known as the PA Electrochemical Plant (ECP) in the Krasnoyarsk region (120 km east of that city), and has ISO 14001 environmental accreditation and ISO 9001 quality assurance system. It is starting to run 9 th generation centrifuges and in 2021 commissioned its third cascade of these. In 2011 Rosatom said the plant's capacity was 8.7 million SWU/yr and it planned to increase that to 12 million SWU/yr by 2020, with a view to exporting its services. Rosatom was investing RUR 70 billion ($2.3 billion) by 2020 in developing the plant, with up to 90% of the new centrifuges installed there to make it the main enrichment plant. It is the site of a new deconversion plant (see below).

The Seversk plant is part of the JSC Siberian Chemical Combine (Sibirsky Khimichesky Kombinat – SKhK or SCC), Tomsk region, which opened in 1953. It is about 15 km from Tomsk. As well as the enrichment plant with substantial capacity for recycled uranium the site has other facilities, and several plutonium production reactors (now closed). It is starting to run 9th generations centrifuges.

Angarsk , near Irkutsk in Siberia, is part of the JSC Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine (AECC). It is the only enrichment plant located outside a 'closed' city, nor has it had any defence role, and hence it became the site of the new International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) and fuel bank. In 2014 AECC said it would retain its present capacity. In December 2014 it started to undertake enrichment of tails (depleted UF 6 ) stored onsite up to natural UF 6 levels, and expects this to continue to 2030 as a major activity.

Technology: Diffusion technology was phased out by 1992 and all plants now operate modern gas centrifuges, with fitting of 8th generation equipment now complete. New units have a service life of up to 30 years, compared with half that previously. The last 6th & 7th generation centrifuges were set up in 2005, 8th generation equipment was supplied over 2004 to 2012, and about 240,000 units per year replaced 5th generation models. (6th generation units are still produced for export to China.) Two new 9 th generation cascades were commissioned in 2015 and 10 th generation units were being tested in 2016.

While TVEL had taken over responsibility for manufacture, in 2016 Rosatom decided to combine the design and production of centrifuges at the Urals Gas Centrifuge Plant (UZGT or UGCP) in Novouralsk, as part of the scientific and production association (SPA) set up by TVEL. OKB-Nizhniy Novgorod and Cetrotech-SPb had been involved in design and manufacture. The first 9 th generation centrifuges were supplied to UECC early in 2013 from UZGT.

Tails re-enrichment: A significant proportion of the capacity of Novouralsk and Zelenogorsk plants – some 7 M SWU/yr – was earlier taken up by enrichment of tails (depleted uranium), including for west European companies Areva and Urenco. According to WNA sources, about 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of tails per year, with U-235 assays between 0.25% and 0.40%, has been shipped to Russia for re-enrichment to about 0.7% U-235 since 1997. The tails were stripped down to about 0.10% U-235, and remain in Russia, being considered a resource for future fast reactors. The contracts for this work for Urenco and Areva ended in 2010.

A portion of the Zelenogorsk capacity, about 4.75 M SWU/yr, was taken up with re-enrichment of tails to provide 1.5% enriched material for downblending much of the Russian HEU destined for USA. It was also the site for downblending much of the of ex-weapons uranium for sale to the USA (though all the other three plants may have contributed over the 20 years).

Seversk capacity is about 3 M SWU/yr, and some recycled uranium (from reprocessing) has been enriched here for Areva, under a 1991 ten-year contract covering about 500 tonnes UF 6 . (French media reports in 2009 alleging that waste from French nuclear power plants was stored at Seversk probably refer to tails from enrichment of the recycled uranium.) It is understood to be enriching the 960 tU of reprocessed uranium from Sellafield in UK, belonging to its customers in Germany and Netherlands, sent to Elektrostal in eight shipments over 2001-09.

In 2012 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 45.5 billion ($1.6 billion) in SCC at Seversk to 2017 for modernising the enrichment capacity and setting up a new conversion plant.

Angarsk (AECC) is the smallest of three Siberian plants, with capacity of about 2.6 million SWU/yr. In July 2011 TVEL confirmed that there were no plans to expand it. A significant focus is tails enrichment. The International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) has been set up at Angarsk (see following IUEC section).

TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment Centre (UEC)

In the context of a December 2006 agreement with Kazakhstan, in 2008 Kazatomprom set up a 50-50 joint venture with Techsnabexport (Tenex) for financing a 5 million SWU/yr increment to the Angarsk plant, with each party to contribute about US$ 1.6 billion and hold 50% equity. It then appeared that initial JV capacity would be about 3 million SWU/yr, with first production in 2011. However, in 2010 Rosatom announced that this would not proceed, due to surplus world capacity, but other joint venture enrichment arrangements with Kazatomprom were offered, notably up to a 49% share in Novouralsk or Zelenogorsk.

After deciding that it would be uneconomic to expand capacity at Angarsk, in March 2011 it was announced that Kazatomprom would buy a share in Urals Electrochemical Combine (UECC) which owns the Novouralsk plant through its 50% equity in the TVEL-Kazakh JV Uranium Enrichment Centre (UEC), "instead of building new capacity at AECC" at Angarsk where UEC was originally established. In mid-2011 it was reported that Kazatomprom would acquire shares in UECC either directly (30%) or in the event as a 50% shareholder in UEC with TVEL, related to the need to enrich 6000 tU/yr. Over 2012-13 UEC acquired 25% of UECC, and UEC became operational in the second half of 2013, with access to 5 million SWU/yr – about half of UECC production. The cost of the Kazatomprom share, earlier estimated by it at $500 million, was not disclosed. The first batch of enriched uranium was shipped in November 2013. UEC share of production in 2014 was 4.99 million SWU.

Deconversion

Russia's W-ECP or W-EKhZ deconversion plant is at Zelenogorsk Electrochemical Plant (ECP). The 10,000 t/yr deconversion (defluorination) plant was built by Tenex under a technology transfer agreement with Areva NC (now Orano), so that depleted uranium can be stored long-term as uranium oxide, and hydrogen fluoride is produced as a by-product. The W1-ECP plant is similar to Areva's W2 plant at Pierrelatte in France and has mainly west European equipment. It was commissioned in December 2009 and to January 2021 had processed 100,000 t depleted uranium hexafluoride. The Russian-designed phase 2 for production of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride was commissioned in December 2010. During the ten years to end of 2020, some 11,000 t of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride as well as much more hydrofluoric acid were shipped to customers. TVEL is building a second unit, W2-ECP, with equipment from Orano Projects in France. This will expand ECP’s capacity to 20,000 t/yr depleted uranium hexafluoride from 2023 and producing up to 2400 t/yr of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride. 

Fuel fabrication

Fuel fabrication is undertaken by JSC TVEL, which supplies 76 nuclear reactors in Russia and 13 in other countries as well as 30 research reactors and fuel for naval and icebreaker reactors. Its operations are certified against ISO 9001 and it has about 17% of the world market for fabricated fuel. Russian fuel technology is supported by TVEL’s A.A. Bochvar High Technology Research Institute of Inorganic Materials ( VNIINM ).

Fuel cycles

Russia aims to maximise recycling of fissile materials from used fuel. Hence reprocessing used fuel is a basic practice, with reprocessed uranium being recycled and plutonium used in MOX, at present only for fast reactors. However, innovative developments of MOX use open up wider possibilities, and both the REMIX cycle and the Dual Component Power System are described below.

Uranium fuel fabrication

TVEL has two fuel fabrication plants with combined capacity of 2800 t/yr finished fuel:

• The huge Maschinostroitelny Zavod (MSZ) at Elektrostal 50 km east of Moscow – known as Elemash.
• Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP) in Siberia.

TVEL's Chepetsk Mechanical Plant (CMP or ChMZ) near Glazov in Udmurtiya makes zirconium cladding and also some uranium products.

Most fuel pellets for RBMK and VVER-1000 reactors were being made at the Ulba plant at Ust Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, but Elemash and Novosibirsk have increased production. MSZ/Elemash produces fuel assemblies for both Russian and west European reactors using fresh and recycled uranium. It also fabricates research reactor and icebreaker fuel and in 2016 is producing the first fuel for the RITM-200 reactors in new icebreakers. VNIINM claims the fuel has greater energy density than previous icebreaker fuel.

Novosibirsk produces mainly VVER-440 & 1000 fuel, including that for initial use in China.

MSZ/Elemash is the principal exporter of fuel assemblies. Total production is about 1400 t/yr, including fuel assemblies for VVER-440, VVER-1000, RBMK-1000, BN-600 reactors, powders and fuel pellets for delivery to foreign clients. It has a contract to supply high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel over seven years for China's first CFR600 fast reactor. The plant also produces nuclear fuel for research reactors.

TVEL is developing a uranium-erbium fuel for VVERs enriched to 5-7% for load-following and longer fuel cycles. Some RBMK fuel is already enriched over 5%.

Early in 2021 MSZ set up a new production line for fast reactor fuel, including HEU. Russia’s BN-600 reactor uses uranium fuel with three levels of enrichment: 17%, 21% and 26%. Fuel for China’s CFR600 is likely to be similar. On another production line MSZ has already provided fuel for China’s CEFR, including a 2020 reload, reported to be 64% enriched.

TVEL’s NCCP also produces pure lithium-7, and accounts for over 70% of the world supply of Li-7, both 99.95% for use in PWR cooling systems, and also now 99.99% pure. A plant upgrade in 2013 makes it possible to double the volume of Li-7 output there.

TVEL has done extensive work done on utilization of reprocessed uranium (RepU) in VVER-type reactors, and there are plans for all units of the Kola nuclear station to shift to RepU fuel. Some PWR reactors, e.g. Kalinin 2 and Balakovo 3, are using recycled uranium in TVSA fuel assemblies already.

There is no plan or provision to use MOX in light-water reactors.

TVEL owns 35% equity in the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan. This has major new investment under way. It has secured both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 accreditation. Since 1973 Ulba has produced nuclear fuel pellets from Russian-enriched uranium which are used in Russian and Ukrainian VVER and RBMK reactors. Some of this product incorporates gadolinium and erbium burnable poisons. Ulba briefly produced fuel for submarines (from 1968) and satellite reactors. Since 1985 it has been able to handle reprocessed uranium, and it has been making fuel pellets incorporating this for western reactors, supplied through TVEL.

TVEL's Moscow Composite Metal Plant designs and makes control and protection systems for nuclear power reactors.

REMIX fuel cycle

REMIX (Regenerated Mixture) fuel has been developed by the  V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute  for Tenex as a development of MOX to supply light water reactors. Remix fuel is produced directly from a non-separated mix of recycled uranium and plutonium from reprocessing used fuel, with a low-enriched uraniium (up to 17% U-235) make-up comprising about 20% of the mix. This gives fuel with about 1% Pu-239 and 4% U-235 which can sustain burn-up of 50 GWd/t over four years and has similar characteristics to normal LWR fuel. It is distinct from MOX in having low and incidental levels of plutonium – none is added. The spent Remix fuel after four years is about 2% Pu-239* and 1% U-235, and following about five years of cooling and then reprocessing the non-separated uranium and plutonium is recycled again after LEU addition. The waste (fission products and minor actinides) is vitrified, as today from reprocessing, and stored for geological disposal. Before vitrification it may be processed to recover valuable fission products such as isotopes Cs, Sr and Tc.

* a 68% increase, compared with 104% in MOX fuel cycle, according to Tenex.

Remix fuel can be repeatedly recycled with 100% core load in current VVER-1000 reactors and correspondingly reprocessed many times – up to five times, so that with fewer than three fuel loads in circulation a reactor could run for 60 years using the same fuel, with LEU recharge. As with normal MOX, the use of Remix fuel reduces consumption of natural uranium in VVERs by about 20% at each recycle as compared with open fuel cycle. Remix can serve as a replacement for existing reactor fuel, but in contrast to MOX there is a higher cost for fuel fabrication due to the high activity levels from U-232. Compared with UO 2  fuel, the cost increment is 25-30%. The Remix cycle can be modified from the above figures according to need. The increasing concentrations of even isotopes of both elements is compensated by the fresh uranium top-up, possibly at increasing enrichment levels.

A 2019 study showed that the use of regenerated uranium in Remix fuel for VVER reactors, and therefore the U-236 isotope, also significantly increases the proportion of Pu-238 in the fuel, which prevents its diversion for non-peaceful purposes.

Remix allows all the recovered uranium and plutonium to be recycled and will give a saving in used fuel storage and disposal costs compared with the once-through fuel cycle, matched by the reprocessing cost, though this is expected to reduce. Compared with the MOX cycle, it has the virtue of not giving rise to any accumulation of reprocessed uranium (RepU) or allow any separated plutonium.

Rosatom loaded three TVS-2M fuel assemblies each with six REMIX fuel rods into Balakovo 3 in June 2016. They remained for two fuel cycles, and a third 18-month cycle began in early 2020. These all showed good results, and Rosatom is now proceeding to pilot operation of several full-REMIX fuel assemblies. No changes in reactor design or safety measures are required. Remix fuel is also being tested in the MIR research reactor at RIAR in Dimitrovgrad.

Tenex suggests Remix being used with a form of fuel leasing from a supplier to a utility, with repeated recycle between them. Commercial application is planned for the mid-2020s. 

In August 2020 Rosatom announced that Remix fuel for VVER-1000 reactors would be produced on a new production line at the Siberian Chemical Plant (SCC) at Seversk from 2023. In June 2021 TVEL commissioned equipment for the pilot fuel production line, enabling initial production of fuel assemblies by year end, using fuel pellets made at the MCC Zheleznogorsk plant. Eventually a commercial-scale Remix fuel fabrication plant is envisaged.

MOX fuel fabrication (only for fast reactors)

In late 2007 it was decided that MOX fuel production using recycled materials should be based on electrometallurgical (pyrochemical) reprocessing and vibropack dry processes for fuel fabrication, as developed at RIAR. The goals for closing the fuel cycle included minimising cost, recycle of minor actinides (for burning), excluding separated plutonium, and arrangement of all procedures in remote systems to allow for 'hot' materials. However, plans for vibropack fuels are not being pursued with any vigour.

MCC Zheleznogorsk MOX plant: A 60 t/yr commercial mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility (MFFF) commenced operation at Zheleznogorsk (formerly Krasnoyarsk-26, 70 km northeast of Krasnoyarsk) in 2015, operated by the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC or GKhK). This was built at a cost of some RUR 9.6 billion as part of Rosatom’s Proryv, or 'Breakthrough', project, to develop fast reactors with a closed fuel cycle whose MOX fuel will be reprocessed and recycled. It represents the first industrial-scale use of plutonium in the Russian civil fuel cycle, and is also the Russian counterpart to the US MFFF for disposition of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium.* About half the plant’s equipment was imported.

* The head of Rosatom reported to the president in September 2015: “Industrial operation has begun at a new MOX fuel (uranium-plutonium fuel) production plant, the first such plant in history. Our American partners have still not managed to finish the plant they were building. They have already spent $7.7 billion on it and, as Congress informs, they are now going to suspend the project because no one knows how much more money it will cost. We built our plant in 2.5 years at a cost of a little over $200 million, or 9.6 billion rubles. The plant is working and is now reaching industrial capacity.”

MCC’s MFFF will make 400 pelletised MOX fuel assemblies per year for the BN-800 and future BN-1200 fast reactors. The MOX can have up to 30% plutonium. The capacity is designed to be able to supply five BN-800 units or equivalent BN-1200 capacity. First production of 20 fuel assemblies for Beloyarsk 4 was in 2015, working up to full capacity in 2017. The BN-800 each year requires 1.84 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium recovered from 190 tonnes of used VVER fuel. The first serial batch of MOX for BN-800 passed acceptance tests in December 2018. (Plutonium from used BN fuel will be used in VVER-1000 reactors.) The MFFF is built in rock tunnels at a depth of about 200 metres.

Longer-term MCC Zheleznogorsk was intending to produce MOX granules for vibropacked fuel using civil plutonium oxide, ex-weapons plutonium metal and depleted uranium. Initial capacity of 14 t/yr of granules was funded to RUR 5.1 billion (US$ 169 million then) over 2010-12. The granulated MOX is sent to RIAR Dimitrovgrad for vibropacking into FNR fuel assemblies.

In June 2011 Rosatom announced that it was investing RUR 35 billion in MCC to 2030, including particularly MOX fuel fabrication. In February 2012 the figure was put at RUR 80 billion minimum.

Mayak MOX plant: A small pelletised MOX fuel fabrication plant has operated at the Mayak plant at Ozersk since 1993, for BN-350 and BN-600 fuel (40 fuel assemblies per year), and it supplied some initial pelletised MOX fuel for BN-800 start-up, the assemblies being made by RIAR Dimitrovgrad.

Seversk MOX plant: Another MOX plant for disposing of military plutonium is planned at Seversk (Tomsk-7) in Siberia, to the same design as its US equivalent. This is for dense MOX fuel for fast reactors, and was planned for completion by the end of 2017, with RUR 5.8 billion allocated by TVEL for the equipment. (Seversk had the other two dual-purpose but basically military plutonium production reactors, totalling 2500 MWt. One of these – ADE4 – was shut down in April 2008, the other – ADE5 – in June 2008.)

RIAR Dimitrovgrad MOX plant: The Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR or NIIAR) at Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk, has a small MOX fuel fabrication plant. This produces vibropacked fuel which was said to be more readily recycled. Under the federal target programme this was allocated RUR 2.95 billion (US$ 83 million) for expansion from 2012. Its main research has been on the use of military plutonium in MOX, in collaboration with France, USA and Japan. From 2014 the plant produced 106 fuel assemblies for Beloyarsk 4 BN-800, before MCC's MFFF took over this role.

Vibropacked MOX fuel (VMOX) was earlier seen as the way forward. This is made by agitating a mechanical mixture of (U,Pu)O 2 granulate and uranium powder, which binds up excess oxygen and some other gases (that is, operates as a getter) and is added to the fuel mixture in proportion during agitation. The getter resolves problems arising from fuel-cladding chemical interactions. The granules are crushed (U,Pu)O 2 cathode deposits from pyroprocessing. VMOX needs to be made in hot cells. It has been used in BOR-60 since 1981 (with 20-28% Pu), and tested in BN-350 and BN-600 as part of a hybrid core (with some military plutonium). This was evaluated by OKBM and Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute. However, its future is uncertain, and MOX fuel may revert to being conventional sintered pellets.

Dual-component power system MOX

Rosatom has proposed a fuel cycle involving both thermal and fast reactors, using two kinds of MOX fuel, and envisages implementing this system when the first BN-1200 reactors are online about 2027. In 2020 the first MOX using plutonium from conventional power reactors was loaded into Beloyarsk's BN-800 reactor and later in the year another 180 such fuel assemblies will be added. By the end of 2021, the reactor will fully switch to MOX fuel.

In this fuel cycle, normal thermal reactors are the primary plutonium source, but this plutonium is reactor-grade, with about one-third even-mass number non-fissile isotopes. The plutonium is mixed with deflourinated tails from uranium enrichment ( i.e. depleted uranium). Whether derived from used uranium fuel or MOX fuel, it is separated and made into MOX fuel for fast breeder reactors with not less than 1.2 breeding ratio, and the used fuel from these has a much lower proportion of even-number non-fissile plutonium isotopes.

In future this ‘clean’ or high-fissile plutonium recovered from fast reactor fuel can then made into MOX fuel for the original thermal reactors, and comprise about 30% of their fuel. The other 70% could be enriched reprocessed uranium (RepU), the depleted tails of which are also used for MOX, instead of using normal depleted uranium. Their used fuel is reprocessed to continue the dual cycle. Minor actinides are burned in the fast reactors.

One fast reactor running on 'dirty' MOX would therefore be in balance with two VVER reactors fuelled with 'clean' MOX (30% of load) and RepU oxide enriched to about 17% U-235 (70% of load) via segregated reprocessing facilities and segregated fuel fabrication.

Further details are in the information paper on Mixed Oxide Fuel .

Nitride fuel fabrication for fast reactors

Overall, RUR 17 billion is budgeted for nitride fuel development, which is mainly for the BREST-300 reactor, part of Rosatom’s Proryv or 'Breakthrough' project . Both SCC plants will be part of the Pilot Demonstration Power/Energy Complex (PDPC or PDEC) with the BREST reactor, integral to the Proryv project and approved by government decree in August 2016. The Proryv project at SCC is expected to be fully operational from 2023.

To avoid problems in reactor operation and spent fuel, nitrogen-15 is the preferred isotope. VNIINM has patented a technique for enrichment in N-15, annual demand for which is expected to be several tonnes.

SCC nitride fuel plant KEU-1: In collaboration with TVEL, the Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) at Seversk is making test batches of dense mixed nitride uranium-plutonium (MNUP) fuel for fast reactors, essentially prototype fuel for BREST. Construction of SCC’s pilot nitride fuel plant started in March 2014 with a view to commissioning in 2017-18, in time to produce fuel for the first BREST-300 reactor, which is now expected in operation about 2024. In April 2016 Atomenergomash supplied to SCC a plant for preparation of input materials for automated fabrication of MNUP fuel for fast neutron reactors. 

SCC completed acceptance tests on the first ETVS nitride fuel assembly in September 2014, and it had further ones (ETVS-10 & 11) ready a year later, using parts supplied by VNIINM. In April 2015 the first ETVS nitride fuel assemblies were put into the BN-600 reactor at Beloyarsk for testing over three years, and by August 2015 there were nine ETVS there. In November 2015 the post-irradiation inspection of ETVS-1 after six-month storage to cool showed it to be in good shape. In April 2016 two more dense nitride fuel assemblies (ETVS-12 & 13) were delivered to Beloyarsk for irradiation in the BN-600 reactor. They were designed by VNIINM and made by SCC as prototypes for BREST-300 and BN-1200 reactors. In mid-2016 VNIINM produced two more pilot fuel assemblies, ETVS-14 & 15, with mixed nitride fuel for testing in the BN-600 reactor at Beloyarsk.  MSZ completed acceptance tests on these in August. In December 2016 SCC announced successful post-irradiation tests on ETVS fuel assemblies, confirming their suitability for BREST. ETVS-16 to 21 were scheduled for 2017. The next series of ETVS will be of a different design. By November 2020, more than 1000 MNUP fuel rods had been produced and more than 21 fuel assemblies had been irradiated in BN-600, the latest ones each with 61 fuel rods.

SCC nitride fuel plant KEU-2: SCC started construction of a second integrated experimental facility (KEU-2) in 2016, to fabricate fuel for testing in the BN-800 reactor at Beloyarsk. A U-Pu-Np nitride fuel fabrication and recycling facility is part of the Pilot Demonstration Power Complex (PDPC; Russian acronym: ODEK) at SCC. Rosatom began installing equipment here for MNUP fuel fabrication and refabrication for the BREST-300 in 2017. The main fabrication line was expected in operation in 2020, with daily production capacity of up to 60 kg of fuel, or 120 nuclear fuel assemblies, and a total of 14.7 tonnes of fuel per year.

In October 2014 SCC announced a tender for a reprocessing plant to be completed by 2018, with VNIPIET as SCC’s preferred bidder. It included a module for processing used nuclear fuel, to examine technologies VNIINM and the VG Khlopin Radium Institute have developed. VNIINM said its experiments in 2016 had confirmed for the first time that the technology used for the reprocessing of used mixed nitride fuel enables the re-use of more than 99.9% of the actinides. The actual RUR 20 billion plant is to have a capacity of 5 t/yr used fuel from the BREST-300 and 0.5 t/yr of “rejects from electrolysis process and americium-containing burning elements.” It will  commence operation about 2024, after the BREST-300 is in service. This will be part of the Pilot Demonstration Power/Energy Complex (PDPC or PDEC) with the BREST reactor.

SCC started testing three different refining technologies for the plant in 2016. The best option will be selected and used in the used fuel recycling module within PDPC. The project manager said that the refining installation “can be used as a sector-wide test-bench to deal with uranium, plutonium, and neptunium.”

Mayak nitride fuel plant: A new 14 tonne per year plant to fabricate dense mixed nitride fuel for fast neutron reactors is planned at PA Mayak, to operate from 2018. In the federal target programme to 2020, RUR 9.35 billion ($310 million) was budgeted for it. Later it may be expanded to 40 tonnes per year.

International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC)

The IUEC concept was inaugurated at the end of 2006 in collaboration with Kazakhstan, and in March 2007 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed to set up a working group and continue developing the proposal. In September 2007 the joint stock company Angarsk International Uranium Enrichment Centre (JSC Angarsk IUEC) was registered and a year later Rostechnadzor licensed the centre.

Late in 2008 Ukraine's Nuclear Fuel Holding Company, SC Nuclear Fuel, decided to take a 10% stake in it, matching Kazatomprom's 10%, and this was effected in October 2010. Armenia finalised its 10% share in IUEC in May 2012 (2600 shares for RUR 2.6 million). Negotiations since then have proceeded with South Africa, Vietnam, Bulgaria, UAE, Jordan, South Korea and Mongolia (in connection with Russian uranium interests there). Russia also invited India to participate in order to secure fuel for its Kudankulam plant. The aim is for Techsnabexport/TVEL eventually to hold only 51%. Each of the 26,000 IUEC shares is priced at RUR 1000.

Present equity in JSC Angarsk IUEC: TVEL 70%, Kazatomprom 10%, Ukraine State Concern Nuclear Fuel 10%, Armenia NPP 10%.

The centre is to provide assured supplies of low-enriched uranium for power reactors to new nuclear power states and those with small nuclear programmes, giving them equity in the project, but without allowing them access to the enrichment technology. Russia will maintain majority ownership. IUEC will sell both enrichment services (SWU) and enriched uranium product. Arrangements for IAEA involvement were being sorted out in 2009, and in 2010 a feasibility study commenced on IUEC investment, initially for equity in JSC Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Combine (AECC) so that part of its capacity supplies product to IUEC shareholders.

The existing enrichment plant at Angarsk was to feed the IUEC and accordingly was removed from the category of "national strategic installations", though it had never been part of the military programme. In February 2007 the IUEC was entered into the list of Russian nuclear facilities eligible for implementation of IAEA safeguards. The USA has expressed support for the IUEC at Angarsk. Since 2010 the facility has been under IAEA safeguards.

Development of the IUEC was envisaged in three phases:

• Use part of the existing capacity at Angarsk in cooperation with Kazatomprom and under IAEA supervision.
• Expand Angarsk capacity (perhaps double) with funding from new partners by 2017.
• Full internationalisation with involvement of many customer nations under IAEA auspices.

In 2012-13 the IUEC website said: “The JSC IUEC has been established within the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Complex , but it can use capacities of other three Russian combines to diversify production and optimize logistics.”

In 2016 a major customer was Ukraine’s State Concern Nuclear Fuel, which since 2012 has bought 60,000 SWU per year, proportional to its shareholding.

IUEC guaranteed LEU reserve ('fuel bank')

In November 2009 the IAEA board approved a Russian proposal to create an international guaranteed LEU reserve or 'fuel bank' of low-enriched uranium under IAEA control at the IUEC at Angarsk. This was established a year later and comprises 123 tonnes of low-enriched uranium as UF 6 , enriched 2.0-4.95% U-235 (with 40t of latter), available to any IAEA member state in good standing which is unable to procure fuel for political reasons. It is fully funded by Russia, held under safeguards, and the fuel will be made available to the IAEA at market rates, using a formula based on spot prices. Following an IAEA decision to allocate some of it, Rosatom will transport material to St Petersburg and transfer title to the IAEA, which will then transfer ownership to the recipient. The 120 tonnes of low-enriched uranium as UF 6 is equivalent to two full fuel loads for a typical 1000 MWe reactor, and in 2010 was worth some $250 million.

This initiative complements the   IAEA LEU Bank set up in Kazakhstan by making more material available to the IAEA for assurance of fuel supply to countries without their own fuel cycle facilities. The IAEA LEU Bank is located at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant (UMP) in Kazakhstan, which has 50 years of experience in handling UF 6 . A formal agreement with Kazakhstan to establish the legal framework was signed in August 2015, and the partnership agreement between the IAEA and UMP was signed in May 2016. Construction of the building with 600 m 2 storage area started in September 2016, and the facility was formally opened at the end of August 2017. It became operational in 2019, and it awarded contracts to Orano and Kazatomprom to supply it.

Used fuel and reprocessing

Russian policy is to close the fuel cycle as far as possible and utilise recycled uranium, and also to use plutonium in MOX fuel. However, its achievements in doing this have been limited – in 2011 only about 16% of used fuel was reprocessed, this being from VVER–440s, BN-600, research reactors and naval reactors. The reprocessed uranium (RepU) is mainly used for RBMK fuel. By 2030 Rosatom hopes to fully close the fuel cycle. Commercial reprocessing started in 1977, and several projects at two sites have been under way to progress this intention:

• At Mayak Production Association in Ozersk, the RT-1 spent fuel reprocessing facility was first updated and returned to service in 2016, and will then be shut down in about 2030.
• At Mining and Chemical Combine (MCC) in Zheleznogorsk, the MOX fuel fabrication plant for fast reactors was commissioned in 2015 (see above).
• At MCC the Pilot Demonstration Centre (PDC) for used nuclear fuel reprocessing was commissioned in 2015.
• At MCC the full-scale RT-2 facility would be completed by 2025 to reprocess VVER, RBMK and BN used fuel into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel or into REMIX – the regenerated mixture of uranium and plutonium oxides.
• At MCC Zheleznogorsk the spent fuel pool storage would be supplemented by dry storage, commissioned in 2012, and MCC will become the destination for all of Russia’s used fuel.

In 2013 used fuel arisings in Russia were:

All used fuel is stored at reactor sites for at least three years to allow decay of heat and radioactivity. High burn-up fuel requires longer before it is ready to transport. At present the used fuel from RBMK reactors and from VVER-1000 reactors is stored (mostly at reactor sites) and not reprocessed. It is expected that used fuel in storage will build up to about 40,000 tonnes by the time substantial reprocessing at MCC Zheleznogorsk gets under way about 2022. The materials from this will be burned largely in fast reactors by 2050, when none should remain.

In late 2007 it was decided that MOX fuel production using recycled materials from both light water and fast reactors should be based on electrometallurgical (pyrochemical) reprocessing. The goals for closing the fuel cycle are minimising cost, minimising waste volume, recycle of minor actinides (for burning), excluding separated plutonium, and arrangement of all procedures in remote-handled systems. This reprocessing route remains to be developed.

In August 2016 a new program for management of used fuel to 2020 was announced. It provides for transport of used fuel to Mayak at Ozersk for reprocessing, or to a central storage facility at MCC Zheleznogorsk where the reprocessing plant is due to be commissioned.

RT-1 reprocessing plant, Mayak

Used fuel from VVER-440 reactors Kola 1-4 and Rovno 1-2 in Ukraine), the BN-600 (Beloyarsk) and from naval reactors is sent to the Mayak Chemical Combine's 400 t/yr RT-1 plant (Chelyabinsk-65) at Ozersk, near Kyshtym 70 km northwest of Chelyabinsk in the Urals for reprocessing.* An upgrade of the RT-1 plant to enable it to take VVER-1000 fuel was completed in 2016, and reprocessing of fuel from Rostov began late in the year. In 2017, 20 tonnes of used VVER-1000 fuel from Balakovo is to be reprocessed.

* The original reprocessing plant at the site was hastily built in the mid-1940s, for military plutonium production in association with five producer reactors (the last shut down in 1990).

The RT-1 plant started up in 1971 and employs the Purex process. Since about 2000 the plant has been extended and modified so that it can accept a wide variety of inputs, including U-Be research reactor fuel.  It had reprocessed about 5000 tonnes of used fuel to 2012 and was reported to be running at about 100 t/yr capacity, following the loss of foreign contracts. In 2015 RT-1 processed 230 tonnes of fuel, 35% more than in 2014, and its capacity is expected to reach 400 t/yr “within several years”, comprising all types from Russian designed reactors, notably VVER-1000 and RBMK. From 2017 it will also be able to reprocess uranium nitride fuel. However, after the commissioning of the RT-2 plant at MCC, it is due to be decommissioned about 2030.

About 93% of its feed to 2015 has been from Russian and Ukrainian VVER-440 reactors, about 3% from naval sources or icebreakers and 3% from the BN-600 reactor. It earlier reprocessed BN-350 used fuel. Damaged used fuel is to be reprocessed there to avoid the need for prolonged storage. In September 2015 Rosatom said that reprocessing the fuel from 201 decommissioned vessels transferred to it from the Ministry of Defence was 97% complete, and that no naval fuel remained in the Far East. Regular shipments of used submarine fuel from Andreeva Bay storage to Mayak for reprocessing commenced in mid-2017, and 22,000 naval fuel assemblies are expected to be shipped by 2024, via Murmansk.

In 2015 Mayak started reprocessing the uranium-beryllium fuel from dismantled Alfa -class submarines, as a ‘nuclear legacy project’. These unsuccessful vessels had a single reactor of 155 MWt cooled by lead-bismuth and using very highly enriched uranium – 90% enriched U-Be fuel. The experience gained with lead-bismuth eutectic is being applied in Russia’s fast reactor programme – notably BREST (since SVBR was dropped).

Recycled uranium is enriched to 2.6% U-235 by mixing RepU product from different sources and is used in all fresh RBMK fuel, while separated plutonium oxide is stored. High-level waste is vitrified and stored. There are plans to use RepU for all the Kola VVER reactors. Vitrified HLW from Ukraine’s VVER-440 used fuel is to be returned to Ukraine from 2018.

Used fuel storage capacity there is being increased from 6000 to 9000 tonnes, but will remain limited compared with Zheleznogorsk. Hence the used fuel received is usually treated fairly promptly. In 2015, 5184 RBMK used fuel assemblies were sent there from the Leningrad and Kursk plants, for storage initially.

Zheleznogorsk MCC: Pilot Demonstration Centre and RT-2 reprocessing plant

A Pilot Demonstration Centre (PDC) for several reprocessing technologies is operated by MCC at Zheleznogorsk, built at a cost of RUR 8.4 billion and completed in 2015 as a "strategic investment project". Its initial capacity with research hot cells is 10 t/yr, increasing to 100 t/yr, with later increase to 250 t/yr from 2018 as phase 2. PDC phase 2 was expected to be in full operation in 2019. It will have innovative technology including embrittlement by crystallization, and simultaneous gas, thermo and mechanical spent fuel assembly shredding. Initially it will deal with VVER-1000 fuel, later with fuel from fast reactors. It will effectively be the first stage of the large redesigned RT-2 plant at the MCC/GHK site to be operational about 2024. The cost of RepU product is expected to be some €500/kg. The PDC “can be used for demonstration of the closed nuclear fuel cycle of thermal neutron reactors running on REMIX-fuel” as well as producing MOX fuel.

The RT-2 reprocessing plant at Zheleznogorsk is now on track for completion with 700 t/yr capacity by 2025 (in addition to the 250 t/yr at PDC). Another 800 t/yr is planned by 2028. Originally it was planned to have two 1500 t/yr lines, but for some time the project was under review. Construction started in 1984 but halted in 1989 when 30-40% complete due to public opposition and lack of funds (though in 1993 it was officially reported as "under construction"). It has now been redesigned and is expected to operate from around 2025 with advanced Purex process, for both VVER-1000 and RBMK fuel, and also BN fuel. Its cost is about $2 billion, with no federal funds. The facility could form part of the new Global Nuclear Infrastructure Initiative and foreign equity in a joint stock company is being considered. (See also International Collaboration section below.)

Zheleznogorsk MCC: RBMK and VVER used fuel storage

VVER-1000 used fuel is sent to the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC) (Gorno-Khimichesky Kombinat – GHK) at Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26) in Siberia for pool storage. The site is about 60 km north of Krasnoyarsk. This fuel comes from three Russian, three Ukrainian and one Bulgarian plants. A large pool storage facility was built by MCC at Zheleznogorsk in 1985 for VVER-1000 used fuel, though its 6000 tonne capacity would have been filled in 2010. The facility was fully refurbished over 2009-10, and some dry storage capacity was commissioned in 2011. In December 2009 Rostechnadzor approved pool storage expansion to 7200 tonnes and MCC sought approval to expand it to 8400 tonnes capacity to allow another 6 years input. It is now planned to expand wet storage for VVER-1000 fuel to 11,000 tonnes.

In 2012 the first stage of an 8600 tonne dry storage facility for used fuel (INF DSF-2) was commissioned at Zheleznogorsk. It was built by the E4 Group at a cost of about $500 million for the MCC/GHK. It is the largest dry storage facility in the world, holding 8129 tonnes of RBMK fuel, initially from Leningrad and Kursk power plants, followed by Smolensk. At Leningrad the fuel is cut up and put into the large containers before being shipped to MCC. RBMK fuel is not presently economic to reprocess so has been stored at reactor sites, and when transferred to MCC it is stored in hermetically sealed capsules filled with nitrogen and helium, inside a building but air-cooled.

The second stage of MCC dry storage will take VVER-1000 fuel currently in wet storage there and increase capacity to over 37,000 tonnes (26,510 t RBMK, 11,275 t VVER). MCC expects to commission it about the end of 2016. It is expected to be commissioned about the end of 2015. The original wet storage facility is to be decommissioned in 2026. Used fuel will be stored for up to 50 years, pending reprocessing. MCC has flagged the possibility of storing foreign VVER-1000 used fuel, such as that from fuel take-back arrangements linked to foreign reactor sales (initially Iran). This can be reprocessed in Russia, but the waste must be repatriated.

Bilibino's LWGR used fuel is stored at Bilibino site.

(Three decommissioned graphite-moderated reactors which principally produced military plutonium, with associated underground reprocessing plant, are also at MCC Zheleznogorsk. The huge underground complex, 200-250 m deep, was originally established in 1950 for plutonium and weapons production.)

Other reprocessing plants

At SCC Seversk a reprocessing plant for nitride fuel from BREST fast reactors is envisaged to operate from 2024, closing that fuel cycle. See above under SCC nitride fuel plant KEU-2 .

In  2016 it was announced that decommissioning of the HEU downblending and mixing plant at SCC would be completed by 2022. The plant was built in 1996 at the conversion plant in order to implement the Russia-US program for blending down high-enriched uranium from Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium for export and use in US nuclear power plants. This program concluded in 2013.

Some kind of radioactive waste processing plant is under construction at the Kursk nuclear power station, according to Nikimt-Atomstroy. A completed section, fully operational by the end of 2014, would process liquid radioactive waste. The two remaining sections of the project include a processing facility for solid radioactive waste and a storage facility.

Legacy materials

Russia has a significant amount of legacy materials, some as a result of military materials production ( e.g. slightly irradiated uranium), others from the civil fuel cycle ( e.g. reprocessed uranium), and as a result of reviews over 2006-08 these are now recognised as potentially having significant value. The total quantity is not such as to impact the civil market; there are some technical challenges ( e.g. limiting U-232 to 5 ppb in enriched RepU), and in any case Russia’s preference is to use the material domestically while making resultant expertise available internationally.

The main material not found in the civil nuclear fuel cycle is slightly irradiated uranium (SIU, 0.65% U-235) from military plutonium production with low burn-up of natural uranium, after reprocessing to separate that plutonium. If SIU is enriched, the product can readily be used in nuclear plants and the tails become DSIU, with lower content of even uranium isotopes (232, 234, 236) than normal RepU, hence more valuable.

Historically, Russian used fuel from all but VVER-1000 civil reactors has been reprocessed at Mayak to yield RepU with about 0.9% U-235. This has mostly been enriched to provide fuel for RBMK reactors, with the tails as DRepU.

Also historically, to 2000, foreign used fuel was reprocessed and the RepU blended with LEU to yield reactor fuel which was returned as if the RepU had been enriched.

In the centrifuge enrichment process, different ways of feeding cascades with both U nat and RepU and blending the product can control U-232 levels and also U-236 levels (which if over 0.1% can be compensated by higher enrichment levels). Russian enrichment plants have provision for this flexible cascading. Then blending the enriched uranium product (from SIU, DSIU or RepU) with U nat or SIU can further reduce both of these even isotopes according to customer requirements, and below the pending Russian limit of 5 ppb U-232 (now 2 ppb).

This will enable use of RepU in VVER-1000 reactors from 2021 and increase the value of Russian RepU for domestic needs. It will also mean that production and use of RepU are balanced, especially as RBMK units are decommissioned and the Mayak RT-1 plant capacity is increased to 250 t/yr and the PDC at MCC Zheleznogorsk reaches 250 t/yr.

Russia expects to have spare capacity to process foreign RepU from about 2020.

Radioactive waste

Russia's Duma passed a new Federal Law on Radioactive Waste Management in June 2011, after 19 months consideration and many amendments. It was passed by the state Council in July and then signed into law. It establishes a legal framework for radioactive waste management, provides for a national radwaste management system meeting the requirements of the Joint Convention on the Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and on the Safe Management of Radioactive Waste ratified by Russia in 2006.

In November 2015 the government approved Rosatom’s second federal target programme (FTP NRS-2) for nuclear and radiation safety for 2016 to 2030. "The key issue is the deferred liabilities accumulated during the 70 years of the nuclear industry, particularly during the time of the Soviet Union.” In the first FTP since 2008 Rosatom has completed more than was set out then, against a budget of RUR 123 billion. About 73% of the new FTP budget of RUR 562 billion will be for decommissioning commercial reactors, and the withdrawal of buildings and facilities at Mayak Production Association, Siberian Chemical Combine, Angarsk Electrolysis and Chemical Complex and Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant – facilities once involved in state defence programmes. Nearly 20% of the funding will go on creating the infrastructure required for the processing and final disposal of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste; 5% on monitoring and ensuring nuclear and radiation safety; and 2% on scientific and technological support. About 70% of the budget is from federal funds, much of the rest from Rosatom. It will be implemented in three 5-year stages, and involves the transition to new used fuel recycling technologies to close the fuel cycle, establishing a final HLW repository, decommissioning of 82 nuclear & radiation hazardous facilities, two nuclear icebreakers and other tasks.

Rosatom and the National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management – FSUE NO RAO – is responsible for coordination and execution of works associated with radwaste management, notably its disposal. This includes military waste. The law establishes time limits for interim radwaste storage and volume limits for waste generators, and defines how they should bring waste in condition suitable for disposal and transfer it to the national operator along with payment of disposal charges. Import and export of radwaste is banned. All newly-generated waste is the responsibility of its generators who will pay for its disposal and storage, with funds accumulated in the SC Rosatom’s bank account as a special fund. However, the 2011 law did not address how to resolve property disputes in siting, nor local authority responsibilities, nor financing mechanisms for affected municipalities. In October 2014 NO RAO submitted to Rosatom proposals for changes in legislation on these matters so that it could proceed with its mandate. In 2015 RUR 6.5 billion will be paid over by various enterprises to Rosatom’s reserved fund for radioactive waste disposal, at rates set in 2013 for the period to 2017.

Rosatom plans to draft two more laws: on decommissioning and used fuel management.

FSUE RosRAO is a Moscow-based Rosatom company providing commercial back-end radwaste and decommissioning services for intermediate- and low-level waste as well as handling non-nuclear radwaste and nuclear decommissioning. It commenced operation in 2009 under a temporary arrangement pending finalisation of regulations under the new legislation, and became part of Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division (LC BED) in 2013. It incorporates Radon, and now has branches in each of seven federal districts. The Kirovo-Chepetsk branch is responsible for decommissioning that conversion plant with 440,000 tonnes of waste by 2025 at a cost of RUR 2.1 billion.

Naval waste

RosRAO’s Far East Centre for Radioactive Waste Management is DalRAO , near Vladivostok in the Maritime Territory. It has Fokino and Viluchinsk divisions or regions, and operates a long-term open-air storage facility in Razboinik Bay for reactor compartments* from dismantled submarines. The long-term storage facility was under construction from 2006 with Japanese assistance and was commissioned in 2012. It has three nuclear service ships, and the Japanese government donated a floating dock and other equipment to move the reactor compartments. RosRAO plans to have the Regional Center for Conditioning and Long-term Storage of Radioactive Waste (RAW Regional Center) here, mainly for naval waste pending handover to NO RAO. In October 2014 the last spent fuel from dismantled nuclear submarines in the Maritime Territory was dispatched to the Mayak reprocessing plant.

* In 2014 the first three were brought ashore, in 2015 RosRAO planned to move five and then raise the number to ten per year, with a total of 54 three-compartment units to be placed. 

RosRAO's Northwest Centre for Radioactive Waste Management is SevRAO , in the Murmansk region, which is engaged in remediation of the sites which were Navy Northern Fleet bases, and dismantling of retired nuclear-powered naval ships and submarines as well as nuclear service ships at several sites. Andreeva Bay is the main centre of attention today, and international funding is applied to removing its stock of used naval fuel under the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership ( NDEP ), which was established in 2002 and is supported by many countries and the EU through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Its Nuclear Window funds work at Andreeva Bay, dismantling Lepse and the Papa -class submarine at Severodvinsk, with €165 million pledged to mid-2017.

Sayda Bay west of Murmansk was a low-level waste storage site for the navy and has become a regional radioactive waste storage centre as well as a major ship and submarine dismantling centre. After being docked for 24 years at Atomflot’s base near Murmansk, the nuclear service ship Lepse was towed to the Nerpa shipyard in Sayda Bay in 2012 and cut up on a slipway over 2013-16, leaving two problematical sections of the hull. It had served as a floating receptacle for used fuel from Russian icebreakers from 1961 to 1988, and stored damaged fuel from the Lenin . An aft section contained radioactive waste that was sent to the nearby Sayda Bay facility, and a fore section contained 639 used fuel assemblies from icebreakers, many of them badly damaged, were removed over 2019-21 inside a special structure and sent to Mayak. All this is funded internationally under the NDEP.

The old Volodarsky, used as a nuclear service ship from 1966 to 1991 and laden with a lot of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, anchored near Murmansk until 2013, was also towed to Sayda Bay, unloaded and then dismantled by the end of 2014. This was funded by the Russian government. Other solid radioactive waste was collected at Andreeva Bay for transport to Sayda Bay for long-term storage. A lot of submarine dismantling was undertaken at Sayda Bay, with many three-compartment reactor units now stored there on land. In August 2021 Rosatom reported that 120 out of 123 decommissioned submarines in the Arctic region had been dismantled.

Gremikha is a current naval base between Murmansk and Archangel where SevRAO is undertaking the defuelling and dismantling of 11 highly-radioactive liquid metal-cooled naval reactors from Alfa -class submarines from 2014 to 2023. After the 50-tonne reactors are removed from the hull segments shipped apparently from Sayda Bay, they are put into a hot cell and then defuelled, with the fuel loaded into containers for transport to Mayak for reprocessing. This work takes about a year for each core. Raising the scuttled K-27 submarine with similar reactors and dismantling it is pending there (see below). 

Andreeva Bay, in Litsa Fjord 55 km from the Norway border, was set up in the 1960s as a naval base for nuclear submarine refuelling. In 1982 a major leak from a used fuel pool caused the contents to be transferred to temporary and poorly engineered dry storage. Most of the used fuel from dismantled Northern Fleet submarines was stored at Andreeva Bay – some 22,000 fuel assemblies from 100 naval reactors. In 1992 Norway signed an agreement to address the nuclear legacy issues of the former Northern Fleet and the decommissioning of the nuclear submarines. Andreeva Bay was transferred to civil management in 1993 as Branch #1 of SevRAO. The strategy for removing used fuel from the original dry storage units was developed from 2002, with funding from the UK. The removal procedure included building an enclosure of the dry storage units, some of which are damaged and leaking, then transferring the fuel to new canisters, which are then put into 40-tonne casks for storage or transport. In May 2014 SevRAO signed a RUR100 million contract with Norway’s Finnmark to upgrade the Andreeva Bay dry storage facility, and this was commissioned in 2017. From 2017 to 2020 about 10,000 fuel assemblies were removed from Andreeva Bay to a storage site outside the Murmansk region for disposal.

Submarine fuel is shipped to Andreeva Bay in the 1620 dwt Rossita . This is a dedicated ship to transport up to 720 tonnes of used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, and was built for Atomflot in Italy in 2011. The Rossita is primarily for naval waste and fuel from decommissioned submarines, and is used on the Northern Sea Route cruising between Gremikha, Andreeva Bay, Sayda Bay, Severodvinsk and other Russian facilities which dismantle nuclear submarines.  Rossita also moves casks of used submarine fuel from Andreeva Bay to the railhead at the Atomflot base at Murmansk, for transport to Mayak.

A new vessel built in Italy under a 2013 contract, the semi-submersible pontoon dock Itarus , designed to transport three-compartment units of dismantled Russian nuclear submarines for SevRAO in Sayda Bay, was delivered in 2016.

As SevRAO has made good progress, there are plans costed at €123 million to recover seven items of radioactive debris from Arctic waters, where most were dumped in Soviet times, by 2032. This includes submarine reactor compartments and two entire submarines with fuel still in their reactors – K-27 which was scuttled in 1982 in shallow water after major failure in one of its lead-bismuth cooled reactors, and K-159 which sank while under tow to decommissioning in 2003. The majority of the debris is in the eastern bays of the Novaya Zemlya, in the Kara Sea. Some is in the Barents Sea. The total radioactivity of nuclear submarines in both seas is estimated at 37 PBq.

Civil waste

RosRAO is envisaged as an international operator, providing back-end fuel cycle services globally.

The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management ( NO RAO ) is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in March 2012 as the national manager of Russia's used nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, including its disposal. It is the national operator for handling all nuclear waste materials and the single organisation authorised to carry out final disposal of radioactive waste, and also other related functions. Its functions and tariffs are set by government, notably the Ministry of Natural Resources. Its branches are at Zheleznogorsk in Krasnoyarsk, Seversk in Tomsk, Dimitrovgrad in Ulyanovsk and (from late 2013) Novouralsk in Sverdlovsk.

NO RAO is planning an underground research laboratory in Nizhnekansky granitoid massif near Krasnoyarsk for study into the feasibility of disposal of solid HLW and solid medium-level long-lived waste. It has called for tenders, with stage 1 to be completed by the end of 2019, and the whole project completed in 2024. See section below on High-level waste disposal, geological repositories .

The System of State Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials and Radioactive Waste (SSAC RM&RAW) is intended to perform physical inventory testing of nuclear materials and radioactive waste at their locations, and carry out accounting and control of them at the federal, regional and departmental levels. In February 2015 Rosatom introduced an automated system for accounting and control of radwaste from more than 2000 organisations, which is to be fully implemented by the end of the year.

About 32 million cubic metres of radioactive waste is to be disposed of within the framework of NO RAO’s program at a cost of about RUR 307 billion, according to Rosatom. NO RAO’s investment program runs to 2035 and includes capital investment in infrastructure of RUR 158 billion ($4.77 billion). Owners of the radioactive waste needing disposal are to provide 80% of that money, while the remaining 20% is to come from the federal budget. In 2013, 24,000 tonnes of used fuel was reported to be awaiting reprocessing or disposal. Rosatom’s Social Council plays a major role in achieving public acceptance.

Plant 20 at PA Mayak, Ozersk, is understood to be a military plutonium processing facility employing 1900 people. There was a plan to close it down and transfer operations to the Siberian Chemical Combine at Seversk as part of restructuring the nuclear weapons complex, but this was cancelled in March 2010. In 2011 Rostechnadzor said that urgent attention was needed “to the 20 open liquid radioactive waste pools, including decommissioning those at FGUP PA Mayak as containing the highest concentration and amount of liquid radioactive waste.”

Used fuel from Russian-built foreign power and research reactors is repatriated, much of it through the port of Murmansk. Some 70 containers were unloaded and moved south by rail over 2008-2014.

High-level waste disposal, geological repositories

No repository is yet available for high-level waste. Earlier, site selection was proceeding in granite on the Kola Peninsula, and 30 potential disposal sites have been identified in 18 regions, including Siberia, the Urals, the Volga region and the Northwest federal district in order of priority. In 2003 Krasnokamensk in the Chita region 7000 km east of Moscow was suggested as the site for a major spent fuel repository.

Then in 2008 the Nizhnekansky Rock Massif at Zheleznogorsk in Krasnoyarsk Territory was put forward as a site for a national deep geological repository. Rosatom said the terms of reference for the facility construction would be tabled by 2015 to start design activities and set up an underground rock laboratory. Public hearings on the Nizhnekansky Granite Massif were held in July 2012 and in November 2013 it was identified in the Regional Energy Planning Scheme as the planned repository site. In August 2016 the Territorial Planning Scheme to 2030 confirmed the site and approved construction of repository facilities here for 4500 m 3 net of class 1 waste and 155,000 m 3 net of class 2 waste.

The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management (NO RAO) envisages the establishment of an underground laboratory in the Yeniseysky area near Krasnoyarsk for this waste and then no less than nine years' research. It completed the design documentation for the underground laboratory in March 2015 and expects to begin construction in 2017. A decision on repository construction is due by 2025, and the facility itself is to be completed by 2035. Phase 1 of the facility is to be designed to hold 20,000 tonnes of intermediate- and high-level waste, which will be retrievable.

Low- and intermediate-level waste

These are mostly handled similarly to those in other countries. Radon has been the organisation responsible for medical and industrial radioactive waste. It has had 16 storage sites for waste up to intermediate level. Not far outside Moscow, the major Radon facility has both laboratories and disposal sites. Other near-surface storage facilities were in 2008 planned for Sosnovy Bor, Glazov, Gatchina, Novovoronezh, Kirovo-chepetsky, Murmansk, Sarov, Saratov, Bilibino, Kransokamensk, Zelenogorsk, Seversk, Dimitrovgrad, Angarsk, and Udomlya.

NO RAO is planning to establish repositories for at least 300,000 m 3 of low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW, class 3&4 radioactive waste), and these plans are to be in place by 2018. One facility would be built in each of Russia’s seven federal districts to dispose of these three waste streams. In August 2016 the Territorial Planning Scheme to 2030 approved construction of the following near-surface repository facilities:

• 100,000 m 3 LILW at Ozersk in Chelyabinsk region for Mayak.
• 200,000 m 3 LILW at Tomsk/ Seversk for SCC.
• 48,000 m 3 LILW from Urals Electrochemical Combine at Novouralsk.
• 50,000 m 3 LILW at Sosnovy Bor in the Leningrad oblast.

In December 2015 NO RAO received a licence to operate the first stage of a repository at Novouralsk. The licence permits the near-surface disposal of solid radioactive waste by its Seversk branch on behalf of the Urals Electrochemical Combine, and the first stage of 15,000 m 3 was opened in December 2016. Construction of the second stage is to start in 2017, taking capacity to 54,000 m 3 . The facility with a total final capacity of 150,000 m 3 is planned to operate until 2035. “The investments in design, operation and care & maintenance of the facility, as well as subsequent monitoring of the environment will be RUR 6 billion (US$820 million), as per preliminary estimates,” according to NO RAO.

NO RAO has received local government approval in the Chelyabinsk and Tomsk regions respectively for the final disposal of low- and intermediate-level waste (LILW) at the sites of Mayak Production Association in Ozersk, and Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC), based in Tomsk. In 2017 NO RAO said it planned a 214,000 m 3 repository near Ozersk, and 150,000 m 3 at Seversk near Tomsk, both to be built by 2021.

However, Russia has also for many years used deep-well injection for low- and intermediate-level waste from some facilities, notably Seversk, Zheleznogorsk and Dimitrovgrad. This is mainly waste from reprocessing. A Central Europe review report in 1999 said that the wells ranged from 300 up to 1500 metres deep, and that Seversk was the main site utilising the method, with 30 million cubic metres injected. This practice has delayed Russian acceptance of an IAEA standard for radioactive waste disposal, since it has no packaging or engineered barriers and relies on the geology alone for safe isolation. The new 2011 Radioactive Waste Management law said: “Underground disposal of liquid radioactive waste may be executed, in accordance with the requirements of federal regulations and rules, inside geological formations (‘collector horizons’) as limited by the bounds of the area allotted, within which liquid radioactive waste must remain localised.”

In July 2013 Rostechnadzor issued five-year licences to the three regional branches of NO RAO, for “activities associated with final disposal of liquid radioactive waste.” In the November 2013 Regional Energy Planning Scheme two active sites for deep geological disposal of liquid radioactive waste (LRW) are identified: Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk oblast, on the NIIAR site 1300 km SE of Moscow, and a northern one: Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk territory in Siberia, on the MCC site. A preliminary finding of the 2013 IRRS mission from IAEA was that “License conditions related to the safety assessment and safety case of liquid radioactive waste disposal facilities should be revised.” In August 2016 the Territorial Planning Scheme to 2030 approved deep well repository for 50 million m 3 of liquid radioactive waste.

Energospetsmontazh announced in March 2015 that the trial operation of plasma-based processing of radioactive waste had started at Novovoronezh. The system is designed for plasma pyrolysis processing of solid radioactive waste of medium and low activity containing both combustible and non-combustible components.

Kyshtym accident and related pollution

There was a major chemical accident at Mayak Chemical Combine (then known as Chelyabinsk-40) near Kyshtym in Russia in 1957. This plant had been built in haste in the late 1940s for military purposes. The failure of the cooling system for a tank storing many tonnes of dissolved nuclear waste resulted in an explosion due to ammonium nitrate having a force estimated at about 75 tonnes of TNT (310 GJ). Most of the 740-800 PBq of radioactive contamination settled out nearby and contributed to the pollution of the Techa River, but a plume containing 80 PBq of radionuclides spread hundreds of kilometres northeast. The affected area was already very polluted – the Techa River had previously received about 100 PBq of deliberately dumped waste, and Lake Karachay had received some 4000 PBq. This ‘Kyshtym accident’ killed perhaps 200 people and the radioactive plume affected thousands more as it deposited particularly Cs-127 and Sr-90. It is rated as a level 6 ‘serious accident’ on the International Nuclear Event Scale, only surpassed by Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

Up to 1951 the Mayak plant had dumped its waste into the Techa River, whose waters ultimately flow into the Ob River and Arctic Ocean. Then they were disposed of into Lake Karachay until at least 1953, when a storage facility for high-level waste was built – the source of the 1957 accident. Finally, a 1967 duststorm picked up a lot of radioactive material from the dry bed of Lake Karachay and deposited it on to the surrounding province. It appears that some radioactive discharges into the Techa River continued, and that in particular between 2001 and 2004, some 30-40 million cubic metres of radioactive effluent was discharged near the reprocessing facility, which “caused radioactive contamination of the environment with the isotope strontium-90.” There is no radiological quantification.

The outcome of these three events made some 26,000 square kilometres the most radioactively-polluted area on Earth by some estimates, comparable with Chernobyl.

Decommissioning

Rostechnadzor oversees a major programme of decommissioning old fuel cycle facilities, financed under the Federal target program on Nuclear and Radiation Safety. The government said it planned to spend some $5 billion to 2015 on decommissioning and waste management. Since 1995 nuclear power plants have contributed to a decommissioning fund.

Several civil reactors are being decommissioned: an experimental 50 MWt LWGR type at Obninsk which started up in 1954 (5 MWe) and was the forerunner of RBMKs, two early and small prototype LWGR (AMB-100 & 200) units – Beloyarsk 1&2 – the Melekess VK-50 prototype BWR, and three larger prototype VVER-440 units at Novovoronezh, a V-210 and V-365 and a V-179. Five were shut down 1981-90 and await dismantling. The fuel has been removed from these and that from Novovoronezh has been shipped to centralised storage in Zheleznogorsk and will be stored there for about ten years before reprocessing. The Beloyarsk fuel is still onsite since reprocessing technology for it is not yet available. The plant is being dismantled, and the site is due to be clear by 2032.

Shutdown Civil Power Reactors

At Novovoronezh 1&2 a decommissioning project with partial dismantling of equipment was largely completed in 2020. The work will take several years, and buildings are likely to be re-used. In particular that portion of the site houses the district heating pumps and equipment, which provides 75% of the heat for the city, and a spare parts store for Rosenergoatom. Novovoronezh 3 was shut down in December 2016 and it will be cannibalised to keep unit 4 (also V-179) operating for up to 60 years.

In 2010 Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC) in collaboration with Rosatom set up the JSC Pilot Demonstration Center for Decommissioning of Uranium-Graphite Reactors (PDC UGR) at SCC site to implement a decommissioning concept for 13 shut-down uranium-graphite production reactors (PUGR) for military plutonium. These are at Mayak Chemical Combine at Ozersk (5), near Kyshtym, at Siberian Chemical Combine, Seversk (5), and at Mining & Chemical Combine, Zheleznogorsk (3). The last plutonium production reactor, ADE-2 at Zheleznogorsk, finally closed for decommissioning in April 2010.* The fuel has been removed from the shut-down reactors and nearly all of it has been reprocessed at Mayak and Seversk. The concept provides for building multiple safety barriers and sealing of shut-down reactors rather than their dismantling, at a cost estimated to be RUR 2 billion (US$ 67 million) each. Entombment is the option selected for EI-2, ADE-4 and ADE-5 reactors. All 13 are expected o be decommissioned by 2030. EI-2, also described as Russia’s first industrial nuclear power station since it produced power as well as military plutonium, operated to the end of 1990 and was decommissioned in 2015. In 2009 SCC won a tender to prepare for decommissioning of the four Bilibino reactors (due to close 2019-21) and two closed ones at Beloyarsk (all LWGRs).

*Russia's plutonium was produced by 13 reactors at three sites: PO Mayak in Ozersk, also known as Chelyabinsk-65 (A, AV-1-3, AI-IR); SKhK – the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk, also known as Tomsk-7 (ADE-3,4&5, EI-1, EI-2); and GKhK – the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk, also known as Krasnoyarsk-26 (AD, ADE-1&2). The five Mayak reactors produced an estimated 31t of weapons-grade plutonium between 1948 and 1990, the five SKhK reactors produced 68t between 1955 and 2008, and the three GKhK reactors produced 46t between 1958 and 2010. Ten of these reactors were shut down between 1987 and 1992, leaving only ADE-2, 4 and 5 until 2008 & 2010. Of four heavy water reactors at Mayak (OK-180, OK-190, OK-190M and LF-2) the first was intended for plutonium production but in fact all were used for producing isotopes and tritium. LF-2 remains in operation.

In January 2014 Rosatom announced that the PDC UGR, having established its credibility and expertise, would cease to be part of SCC and become part of its new End-of-Life (EOL) Management Division, under the Federal Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety (FC NRS).

Three nuclear-powered icebreakers have been decommissioned: Lenin , Sibir and Arktika, also the support vessel: Lepse which held some used nuclear fuel from the Arctic fleet. Lepse was taken out of the water in October 2014 for further dismantling at the Nerpa Shipyard in Murmansk. Lenin is being turned into a museum. SevRAO, the northern branch of RosRAO, dismantles nuclear-powered naval vessels at its Sayda Bay site in Murmansk, and Atomflot is considering using it for retired icebreakers.

In 2014 the Angarsk Electrolysis & Chemical Complex (AECC) said that decommissioning of its conversion plant and diffusion enrichment plants would require RUR 20 billion ($500 million). Decommissioning the conversion capacity at Kirovo-Chepetsky Chemical Combine which was shut down in the 1990s is expected to cost RUR 2.1 billion.

Organisation

The State Corporation (SC) Rosatom is a vertically-integrated holding company which took over Russia's nuclear industry in 2007, from the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAEA, also known as Rosatom). This had been formed from the Ministry for Atomic Energy (Minatom) in 2004, which had succeeded a Soviet ministry in 1992. The civil parts of the industry, with a history of over 60 years, are consolidated under JSC AtomEnergoProm (AEP).

During 2008 there was a major reorganisation or "privatisation" of nuclear industry entities involving change from Federal State Unitary Enterprises (FSUE) to Joint Stock Companies (JSC), with most or all of the shares held by AtomEnergoProm. By mid August 2008, 38 of 55 civil nuclear FSUEs had been reformed. Some renaming occurred due to new restrictions on the use of "Russia" or derivatives (eg "Ros") in JSC names. In mid 2014 eight of the remaining FSUEs were designated ‘federal nuclear organisation’, including Mayak PA and MCC.

The State Nuclear Energy Corporation Rosatom (as distinct from the earlier Rosatom agency) is a non-profit company set up in 2007 to hold all nuclear assets, including more than 350 companies and organisations, on behalf of the state. In particular, it holds all the shares in the civil holding company AtomEnergoProm (AEP). It took over the functions of the Rosatom agency and works with the Ministries of Industry and Energy (MIE) and of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) but does not report to any particular ministry. Early in 2012 the government announced that its civil divisions might be privatized, at least to a 49% share in individual entities. The total workforce is over 250,000.

SC Rosatom divisions are:

• Nuclear weapons complex.
• Nuclear & radiation safety and waste.
• Nuclear power – Atomenergoprom, Rosenergoatom.
• Applied and fundamental science, composite materials.
• Atomflot – Arctic fleet of seven nuclear icebreakers and one nuclear merchant ship.

AtomEnergoProm (Atomic Energy Power Corporation, AEP) is the single vertically-integrated state holding company for Russia's nuclear power sector, separate from the military complex. It was set up at the end of 2007 to consolidate the civil activities of Rosatom including uranium production, engineering, design, reactor construction, power generation, isotope production and research institutes in its several branches, but not used fuel reprocessing or disposal facilities. It incorporates more than 80 enterprises operating in all areas of the nuclear fuel cycle. The April 2007 Presidential decree establishing it specifies nuclear materials, which may be owned exclusively by the state, lists Russian legal entities allowed to possess nuclear materials and facilities, existing joint stock companies to be incorporated into Atomenergoprom, and lists federal state unitary enterprises to be corporatized first and incorporated into Atomenergoprom at a later stage. Exclusive state ownership of nuclear materials had been seen as a barrier to competitiveness and other Russian corporate entities will now be allowed to hold civil-grade nuclear materials, under state control.

Entities from Atomenergoprom itself down to various third-level subsidiaries will be joint stock companies eventually. Public investment in the bottom level operations is envisaged – the joint venture between Alstom and Atomenergomash to provide large turbines and generators is cited as an example.

JSC AtomEnergoProm's many entities include the following (most are JSCs):

- ARMZ Uranium Holding Co (JSC AtomRedMetZoloto) – uranium production – owns Russian mine assets. - Uranium One Group (U1 Group) – responsible for all foreign uranium mining, 78.4% owned. - Techsnabexport (TENEX) – foreign trade in uranium products and services, with North American subsidiary TENAM. - JSC Enrichment & Conversion Complex. - TVEL – conversion, enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication. The BREST-300 reactor is being built by TVEL at SCC Seversk, apparently due to the integration of fuel cycle facilities in the project. - ASE Group is Rosatom’s engineering division, accounting for 30% of the global nuclear power plant construction market according to Rosatom. Most foreign projects are ASE's reponsibility. It now incorporates the following entities: - Atomproekt, the new name for VNIPIET (All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering Technology) which since 2013 incorporates St Petersburg Atomenergoproekt (SPbAEP) – design of nuclear power projects, radiochemical plants and waste facilities. From 2015 this is part of the ASE Group. - Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN AEP or NIAEP) – power plant design, from 2012: holding company for ASE. Sometimes then known as NIAEP-ASE, but re-named Atomstroyexport in December 2016. From October 2014 this is the parent company of Moscow JSC Atomenergoproekt (AEP), so the whole entity became the ASE Group (united company NIAEP-ASE-AEP). Then in 2015 Atomproekt was added to it. - Atomstroyexport (ASE) – construction of nuclear plants abroad, merged with NIAEP in 2012. Sometimes known as NIAEP-ASE until re-named Atomstroyexport in December 2016. From the end of 2014, ASE owns all the shares in JSC Atomenergoproekt and 49% of those in NIAEP, taking them over from Atomenergoprom. - Moscow Atomenergoproekt (AEP) – power plant design, became part of NIAEP-ASE. - Energospetsmontazh – construction and assembly, also repair of nuclear plants. - Atomenergomash (AEM) – a group of companies building reactors. - OKBM Afrikantov (formerly just OKBM – Experimental Design Bureau of Machine-building – Mashinostroyeniya) at Nizhny Novgorod- reactor design and construction. - OKB Gidropress (Experimental Design Bureau pressurised water – Hydropress) at Podolsk near Moscow – PWR reactor design. - JSC Rosenergoatom (briefly Energoatom) – responsible for construction and operation of nuclear power generation. - Rusatom Overseas was established in 2011 to promote Russian nuclear technologies in world markets. After restructuring in May 2015, it is divided into two companies served by Rusatom International Network which runs Rosatom's regional offices around the world, supporting the activities of Rosatom's divisions in foreign markets, seeking new business opportunities and promoting Rosatom's products and services abroad. The two companies are:  • JSC Rusatom Energy International , 44% owned by Rosatom and 56% by Atomenergoprom. It manages foreign construction projects and operation of those nuclear power plants as a shareholder in project companies. It is a major shareholder in JSC Akkuyu Nuclear in Turkey and a 34% shareholder in Fennovoima Oy in Finland. The functions of the company include financing, construction on budget and on time, safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants, and sale of electricity on foreign markets. • JSC Rusatom Overseas Inc , based in Moscow and responsible for promotion of the integrated offer of nuclear power plant construction projects in international markets. Its key tasks are growth of the overseas orders portfolio of Rosatom companies and retaining the leading positions of Russia in global nuclear market. It is to ensure full back-up of the customer nuclear power programmes at all stages of implementation, including financing, training, localisation of supply chain, fuel supply with take-back of used fuel for reprocessing, and decommissioning. - Rusatom Overseas Germany (RAOS Germany) in 2016 will take over the international sales and marketing activities of NUKEM Technologies GmbH in the regions outside of the Western European markets, hence bundling all international marketing activities in the nuclear back-end area and high-temperature reactor fuel with Rusatom Overseas. - Rusatom Service – coordination of servicing nuclear plants abroad, providing “customised solutions for the modernization and operating period extension of VVER-based nuclear power plants”. - Atomenergoremont – maintenance and upgrading of nuclear power plants, - NUKEM Technologies GmbH is active worldwide in management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. NUKEM Technologies Engineering Services GmbH focuses on engineering. Both are wholly-owned subsidiaries of JSC Atomstroyexport, and from 2016 are apparently part of Rusatom Overseas. - Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering (NIKIET) at Moscow – power plant design (originally: submarine power plants) - Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (CDBME) of the Russian Shipbuilding Agency – involved in some reactor design. - JSC State Specialised Design Institute (SSDI or GSPI) was a direct subsidiary of Atomenergoprom set up in 1948 for producing plutonium but now designing SMRs.

Electricity:

JSC Rosenergoatom is the only Russian organization primarily acting as a utility operating nuclear power plants. It was established in 1992 and reorganized in 2001 and then in 2008 as an open JSC. From December 2011 JSC Atomenergoprom holds 96% of the shares, and SC Rosatom (which owns Atomenergoprom) holds 4%. Rosenergoatom owns all nuclear power plants, both operating and under construction.

InterRAO UES was formerly a joint venture of Rosenergoatom and RAO UES, the utility which was broken up in mid 2008. It is now 57.3% owned by Rosatom and focused on electricity generation in areas such as Armenia and the Kaliningrad part of Russia, as the country's exporter and importer of electricity. It has 8 GWe of generating plant of its own and plans to increase this to 30 GWe by 2015, with the Baltic nuclear plant at Kaliningrad as an early priority. It heads a group of over 20 companies located in 14 countries, involving 18 GWe of capacity. Inter RAO-WorleyParsons (IRWP, with Inter RAO 51%) was set up in mid 2010 to work on the transfer of power engineering technology into Inter RAO's market and to promote Inter RAO's projects oversees.

Engineering and general designers:

In July 2008 the St Petersburg, Moscow and Nizhny-Novgorod divisions of Atomernergoproekt were converted to joint stock companies, with all shares held by Atomenergoprom. The first two are engineering companies and general designers of nuclear power plants mainly using VVER reactors developed by Gidropress. By the end of 2015 all the following engineering companies had been consolidated into the ASE Group as Rosatom's engineering division.

Atomproekt at St Petersburg was formed from the 2013 merger of St Petersburg Atomenergoproekt (SPbAEP) with the All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Integrated Power Engineering Technology – VNIPIET (established in 1933) to create the country’s largest nuclear power plant design and development company. It has a particular focus on fast reactors as well as VVER. The company supports all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, from a decision to start a nuclear power plant construction project to decommissioning. On completion of the merger in mid-2014 it became Atomproekt. Earlier, SPbAEP worked closely with Atomstroyexport (ASE) on exported plants. Atomproekt is responsible for Leningrad II plant, Beloyarsk, Baltic, and also the Belarus, Tianwan, Hanhikivi and Paks II plants as export projects.

Atomproekt is also much involved in fuel fabrication and radioactive waste management. It is Russia's sole design company for used nuclear fuel storage facilities. It is closely involved with the Proryv project for closed fuel cycle with fast reactors.

Atomenergoproekt (formerly Moscow AEP) established in 1986 is a major general design and engineering company for nuclear power plants. It may also function as general contractor. In October 2014 it became a subsidiary of NIAEP-ASE.

Its version of the AES-2006 evolved to the VVER-TOI, which Rosatom says is planned to be standard for new projects in Russia and worldwide. It is general designer of Novovoronezh II, being built by NIAEP-ASE, Kursk II, Smolensk II as well as Kudankulam in India and Akkuyu in Turkey. It has been responsible for Kursk and Smolensk RBMK plants, Novovoronezh I, Balakovo, and the Zaporozhe, Temelin and Bushehr plants.

NIAEP-ASE:  Nizhny-Novgorod Engineering Company Atomenergoproekt (NIAEP) set up in 1951 is building plants at Rostov (Volgodonsk) and Kalinin. NIAEP in March 2012 was merged with Atomstroyexport (ASE) to bolster the latter's engineering capability. (Earlier it had linked with ASE to utilize some 1980s VVER equipment not required for Bulgaria's proposed Belene plant, and built it at Kalinin.)  NIAEP  became a holding company for JSC ASE, but NIAEP-ASE was being used as acronym to late 2014.

Atomstroyexport  (ASE), established by merger in 1998, emerged from the reorganisation as a closed joint stock company owned by Atomenergoprom (50.2%) and Gazprombank (49.8%, it is 69% owned by Gazprom). Early in 2009 the Atomenergoprom and related equity was increased to 89.3% by additional share issue, leaving Gazprombank with 10.7%. It was responsible for export of nuclear plants to China, Iran, India and Bulgaria. In 2009 German-based Nukem Technologies GmbH, which specialises in decommissioning, waste management and engineering services, became a 100% subsidiary of Atomstroyexport. In 2012 ASE merged with Nizhny-Novgorod Atomenergoproekt (NN AEP or NIAEP) to form NIAEP-ASE.

Rosatom, through NIAEP-ASE, offers both EPC (engineering, procurement, construction) and BOO (build, own, operate) contracts for overseas nuclear power plant projects, the latter involving at least 25% Rosatom equity. Rosatom offers various kinds of project financing, including attraction of strategic and institutional investors and debt financing. Some project finance is covered by international agreements involving either export credits, Russian government credit or the participation of Russian state banks. It says that lending rates can be optimized for nuclear power plant projects, and up to 85% of the finance may be provided by government credit from Russia.

In November 2014 the projects in hand on the company website were: Rostov 3&4, Baltic 1&2, Nizhny Novgorod 1&2, Kursk II, all in Russia, and Kudankulam 1&2, Tianwan 3&4, Akkuyu 1-4, Ostrovets 1&2, Bushehr 1, Ninh Thuan 1&2. In mid-2013 Rooppur in Bangladesh was added (but then removed). It is also building a large (3x400 MWe) gas combined-cycle plant: South Ural/Yuzhnouralskaya GRES-2 units 1&2.

NIAEP (post 2012 merger) has a design institute in Nizhny-Novgorod, project management offices in Nizhny-Novgorod, Moscow and St Petersburg, and 11 representative offices in Europe and Asia to oversee projects.

Titan-2 was a major subcontractor for the Leningrad II construction, and in 2015 it took over as general contractor for units 1&2. It will also be general contractor for Hanhikivi in Finland.

Rusatom Service was set up in October 2011 by Rosenergoatom (51%), Atomenergomash (16%), Gidropress (16%) and Atomtekhenergo (16%). It will undertake maintenance and repair as well as modernization of Russian-design nuclear power plants abroad, applying Russian domestic experience. The company is also to work in the area of technical consultancy, training and retraining of plant personnel. The market is estimated at €1.5 billion per year, rising to €2.5 billion by 2020, including western-design reactors by then.

OTsKS – Rosatom Branch Centre for Capital Construction – was set up in August 2012 to manage its capital investment program in Russia and internationally. It oversees regulatory, technical and legal aspects of capital construction projects, as well as estimating costs and developing schedules. It also provides training for customer-contractors and general contractors such as NIAEP-ASE as well as the personnel of construction companies. Rosatom subsidiary companies had to complete their transition to new rules on planning capital construction projects developed by OTsKS, by the end of 2013. Its main customer is Rosenergoatom which is building about ten units in Russia, with 12 more planned by 2025.

AKME-engineering was established in 2009 to implement the SVBR-100 project at Dimitrovgrad, including design, construction and commercial operation. It is a JV of Rosatom and JSC Irkutskenergo, and is licensed for construction and operation of nuclear plants by Rostechnadzor.

Uralenergostroy in Yekaterinburg is a civil works general contractor responsible for BN-800, BN-1200 and MBIR plants.

The Federal Centre of Nuclear and Radiation Safety ( FC NRS ) is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in 2007 by Rosatom as part of its End-of-Life (EOL) Management Division. The Pilot Demonstration Center for Decommissioning of Uranium-Graphite Reactors (PDC UGR) is to become part of it, rather than staying with SCC.

The National Operator for Radioactive Waste Management ( NO RAO ) is a federal-state unitary enterprise set up in 2012 responsible for waste management and disposal. It is the National Operator for handling all nuclear waste materials, with functions and tariffs set by government.

FSUE RosRAO provides commercial back-end radwaste and decommissioning services for intermediate- and low-level waste as well as handling non-nuclear radwaste. It commenced operation in 2009 under a temporary arrangement pending finalisation of regulations under the new legislation. It incorporates Radon, which was the organisation responsible for medical and industrial radioactive waste, and now has branches in each of seven federal districts. RosRAO’s Far East Centre (DalRAO) operates long-term storage for over 70 submarine reactor compartments, pending their recycling. Its northern centre is SevRAO, in the Murmansk region, is engaged in remediation of the sites of Navy Northern Fleet bases, and dismantling of retired nuclear-powered naval ships and submarines. RosRAO is envisaged as an international operator. RosRAO became part of Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division (LC BED) in 2013.

In 2013 Rosatom’s Life Cycle Back-End Division (LC BED) was set up to incorporate entities hitherto the responsibility of FC NRS: the Mining and Chemical Combine (MCC), RosRAO, SPA V.G.Khlopin Radium Institute and Radon. FC NRS will continue involvement with the new division.

FSUE Atomflot is a Rosatom division operating the nuclear powered icebreakers and merchant ship in Arctic waters.

Situation and Crisis Centre of Rosatom was established in 1998 acts as the Operator of the Nuclear Industry System for Prevention and Management of Emergencies. It keeps track of nuclear enterprises and transport of nuclear materials.

SNIIP Systematom is an engineering company for nuclear and radiation safety systems. It will supply the equipment for automated radiation monitoring systems (ARMS) at the Kalinin 1 nuclear unit in Russia and Tianwan 4 in China.

The VI Lenin All-Russian Electrotechnical Institute and its affiliated Experimental Plant were made FSUEs by presidential decree in March 2015, and removed from the Ministry of Education & Science.

Supply chain entities

Atomenergomash (AEM) was set up in 2006 to control the supply chain for major reactor components. After an equity issue in 2009 it was 63.6% owned by AEP, 14.7% by TVEL and 7.6% by Tenex, and 7% by AEM-finance. In 2009 AEM had sales of RUR 16 billion. AEM companies claim to have provided equipment in 13% of nuclear plants worldwide. Rosatom has one of the largest procurement budgets in the Russian economy, with the annual value of its orders totaling more than RUR 1000 billion ($17.8 billion) in recent years. Almost 85,000 companies are registered as suppliers to Rosatom and 70,000 contracts are signed each year by the group.

Supply chain reliability for nuclear procurement is a significant concern for Rosatom, and it is seeking reform from the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), in particular to ensure a credible ability to deliver high quality goods and services on time rather than just accepting the lowest price. Rosatom wants to conduct audit checks of suppliers prior to their participation in competitive bidding procedures, in order to verify that they would actually be able to fulfil the orders on which they bid. Rosatom cited as an example of the need for procurement reform the purchase of circulation pumps and combined valves for the Novovoronezh power plant. The supplier agreed to a schedule, but this stretched to 80 months and the equipment eventually delivered failed safety tests at the plant. A similar situation occurred at the Beloyarsk plant. The costs of such delays to Rosatom far exceed any compensation it can claim from delinquent suppliers.

The former main nuclear fabrication company, Atommash, was established in 1973 at Volgodonsk and went bankrupt in 1995. It was then profoundly restructured and resurrected as EMK-Atommash before becoming part of JSC Energomash, a major diversified engineering company apparently independent of Rosatom/AEP. Atommash largely moved away from nuclear equipment, though Atomenergomash (subsidiary of AEP) was keen to resuscitate it as an alternative heavy equipment supplier to OMZ. In 2009 Atomenergomash was doing due diligence on the Energomash group, with a view to taking a half share in it, "to create competition in the segment of monopoly suppliers of long-lead nuclear equipment.” In October 2014 AEM-Assets, a subsidiary of Rosatom, acquired the production assets and a 100% interest in Energomash LLC (Volgodonsk)-Atommash, the forging company, and Energomash JSC (Volgodonsk)-Atommash, which provides services related to the lease of equipment and immovable property. Atommash was integrated into Rosatom as part of AEM-Technology, and can now produce four complete sets of nuclear island equipment per year. The reactor pressure vessel supplied to Belarus in 2015 was the first it had produced in 30 years. Two reactor pressure vessels for the RITM-200 reactors for Russia’s new icebreaker were also produced in 2015. In 2017 it was building the reactor pressure vessel for the MBIR fast research reactor.

Objedinennye Mashinostroitelnye Zavody (OMZ – Uralmash-Izhora Group) itself is the largest heavy industry company in Russia, and has a wide shareholding. Izhorskiye Zavody, the country's main reactor component supplier, became part of the company in 1999, and Skoda Steel and Skoda JS in Czech Republic joined in 2003. OMZ is expected to produce the forgings for all new domestic AES-2006 model VVER-1200 nuclear reactors (four per year from 2016), plus exports. At present Izhora can produce the heavy forgings required for Russia's VVER-1000 reactors at the rate of two per year, and it is manufacturing components for the first two Leningrad II VVER-1200 units.

The Power Machines Company (JSC Silovye Mashiny Concern, or Silmash) was established in 2000 and brought together a number of older enterprises including Leningradsky Metallichesky Zavod (LMZ), Elektrosila, Turbine Blades Factory, etc. Siemens holds 26% of the stock. Silmash makes steam turbines up to 1200 MWe, including the 1000 MWe turbines for Atomstroyexport projects in China, India and Iran, and has supplied equipment to 57 countries worldwide. It is making 1200 MWe turbine generators for the Leningrad and Novovoronezh II nuclear plants. A significant amount of Power Machines' business is in Asia.

The Russian EnergyMachineBuilding Company (REMCO) was established as a closed joint stock company in Russia in 2008, amalgamating some smaller firms, with half the shares owned by Atomenergomash. It is one of the largest manufacturers of complex heat-exchange equipment for nuclear and thermal power plants, oil and gas industry. Its subsidiaries include JSC Machine-Building Plant ZiO-Podolsk and JSC Engineering Company ZIOMAR.

JSC Machine Building Plant ZiO-Podolsk is one of the largest manufacturers designing and producing equipment for nuclear power and other plants. It has made equipment, including steam generators and heat exchangers, for all nuclear plants in the former USSR. It is increasing capacity to four nuclear equipment sets per year. It appears to be 51% owned by REMCO. It is making the reactor pressure vessel and other main equipment for the BN-800 fast reactor at Beloyarsk as well as steam generators for Novovoronezh, Kalinin 4, Leningrad and Belene.

In April 2007 a joint venture company to manufacture the turbine and generator portions of new nuclear power plants was announced by French engineering group Alstom and JSC Atomenergomash. The 49:51 Alstom-Atomenergomash LLC (AAEM) joint venture, in which both parties would invest EUR 200 million, was established at Podolsk, near Moscow. It includes the technology transfer of Alstom's state of the art Arabelle steam turbine and generator (available up to 1800 MWe) tailored to Russian VVER technology. In 2010 AAEM signed an agreement with Inter RAO-Worley Parsons (IRWP) to establish an engineering consortium to design turbine islands for Russia's VVER reactor-based nuclear power plants. At the same time Alstom signed strategic agreements with major Russian energy companies to jointly provide power generation products and services for Russia's power industry in hydro, nuclear and thermal power generation and electricity transmission. Another agreement, between Alstom Power and Rosatom, details plans to set up a local facility to manufacture Alstom's Arabelle steam turbines for nuclear plants. In 2011 Petrozavodskmash joined the group, and its site is more suitable for shipping large components, so in 2011 the company decided to build its factory for Arabelle manufacture at Petrozavodsk, in Karelia, by 2015 instead of continuing with ZiO-Podolsk near Moscow. First production was expected in 2013 with output reaching three 1200 MWe turbine and generator sets per year in 2016. The Baltic plant will be the first customer, in a RUB 35 billion order, with Russian content about 50%. This will increase to over 70% for subsequent projects.

In September 2007 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) signed an agreement with Russia's Ural Turbine Works (UTZ) to manufacture, supply and service gas and steam turbines in the Russian market. Under the agreement, MHI, Japan's biggest machinery maker, will license its manufacturing technologies for large gas turbines and steam turbines to UTZ – part of the Renova Group. The agreement also calls for a joint venture to be established in Russia to provide after-sales service.

Russia has developed several generations of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Ninth-generation machines are now being deployed, 10th generation ones re being developed, and 11th generation are being designed. The 9th generation units are said to be 1.5 times as efficient as 8th. Overall since 1960, the machine weight, size and power characteristics have remained practically unchanged, but their efficiency was raised more than six-fold, design service life was increased from 3 to 30 years, and the SWU cost was reduced “several times”. Centrifuges for China under a US$ 1 billion contract are manufactured at both Tocmash and Kovrov Mechanical plant, both of which will become part of the Fuel Company being established by TVEL. Russia intends to export its centrifuges to the USA and SE Asia.

For more up to date information on heavy engineering, see paper on Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants .

Early in 2006 Rosenergoatom set up a subsidiary to supply floating nuclear power plants (BNPPs) ranging in size from 70 to 600 MWe. The plants are designed by OKBM in collaboration with others. The pilot plant, now under construction, is 70 MWe plus heat output and incorporates two KLT-40S reactors based on those in icebreakers.

Regulation and safety

Two main laws govern the use of nuclear power: the Federal Law on the Use of Atomic Energy (November 1995 and Federal Law on Radiation Safety of Populations (January 1996). These are supported by federal laws including those on environmental protection (2002) and the Federal Law on Radioactive Waste Management (2011). The 1996 Federal Law on Radiation Safety of Populations is administered by the Federal Ministry of Health.

Rostekhnadzor   is the regulator, set up (as GAN) in 1992, reporting direct to the President. Because of the links with military programs, a culture of secrecy pervaded the old Soviet nuclear power industry. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, changes were made and a nuclear safety committee established. The State Committee for Nuclear and Radiation Safety – Gosatomnadzor (GAN) succeeded this in 1992, being responsible for licensing, regulation and operational safety of all facilities, for safety in transport of nuclear materials, and for nuclear materials accounting. Its inspections can result in legal charges against operators. However, on some occasions when it suspended operating licences in the 1990s, Minatom successfully overrode this. In 2004 GAN was incorporated into the Federal Ecological, Technological & Atomic Supervisory Service, Rostechnadzor, which has a very wide environmental and safety mandate. It has executive authority for development and implementation of public policy and legal regulation in the environmental field, as well as in the field of technological and nuclear supervision. It controls and supervises natural resources development, industrial safety, nuclear safety (except for weapons), safety of electrical networks, hydraulic structures and industrial explosives. It licences nuclear energy facilities, and supervises nuclear and radiation safety of nuclear and radiologically hazardous installations, including supervision of nuclear materials accounting, control and physical protection.  A 2011 overview is on IAEA website.

Safety has evidently been improving at Russian nuclear power plants. In 1993 there were 29 incidents rating level 1 and higher on the INES scale, in 1994 there were nine, and since then to 2003, no more than four. Also, up until 2001 many employees received annual radiation doses of over 20 mSv, but since 2002 very few have done so.

In 2008 Rostechnadzor was transferred to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, but this was reversed in mid 2010 and it was brought back under direct control of the government and focused on civil nuclear energy. Following other changes in federal legislation, an IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission in 2013 said that Rostechnadzor had made "significant progress" in its development since 2009 and had “become an effective independent regulator with a professional staff”. Rostechnadzor undertook to make the final IRRS report early in 2014 public.

Glavgosexpertiza , the Russian State Expert Examination Board, is the authority responsible for appraising design documentation and engineering services on behalf of the Ministry of Construction of Russia. Glavgosexpertiza ensures compliance of all major infrastructure construction projects with national technical regulations and statutory requirements. 

Rosprirodnadzor , the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources needs to give environmental approval to new projects, through its State Environmental Commission.

Exports: fuel cycle

Soviet exports of enrichment services began in 1973, and Russia has strongly continued this, along with exports of radioisotopes. After 1990, uranium exports began, through Techsnabexport (Tenex). At 2015 Atomexpo it was announced that at the start of the year Rosatom’s foreign portfolio totaled US$ 101.4 billion, of which $66 billion was reactors, $21.8 billion was the contracted sales of EUP and SWU, and the remaining $13.6 billion was attributable to the sales of fabricated fuel assemblies and uranium. Rosatom’s goal is to gain half its revenue from exported goods and services.

Tenex expects to increase its share in the global market for front-end fuel cycle services to 40% by 2030, assisted by offering an ‘integrated product’ covering the entire nuclear fuel cycle, and to contribute up to half of Rosatom’s foreign currency revenue. Tenex revenue in 2014 was over $2.2 billion, and forward orders totalled almost $23 billion, including almost $6 billion in over 20 contracts with US utilities for enriched uranium product. Tenex sees the Asia-Pacific market as a growth area, using a new transport route through Vostochny Seaport, Primorye Territory.

In 2009 Tenex signed long-term enrichment services contacts with three US utilities – AmerenUE, Luminant and Pacific Gas & Electric – and one in Japan – Chubu. The contracts cover supply from 2014 to 2020. Then it contracted to supply enriched uranium product over the same period with Exelon, the largest US nuclear utility. By the end of 2010, the value of contracts with US companies rose to about $4 billion, beyond the diluted ex-military uranium already being supplied to 2013 from Russian weapons stockpiles. In 2012, Tenex supplied about 45% of world demand for enrichment services and 17% of that for fabricated fuel. It exported fuel for 34 reactors as well as supplying 33 Russian ones.

This US-Russian "Megatonnes to Megawatts" program supplies about 15% of world reactor requirements for enriched uranum and is part of a US$ 12 billion deal in 1994 between US and Russian governments, with a non-proliferation as well as commercial rationale. USEC and Tenex are the executive agents for the program. However, Rosatom confirmed in mid 2006 that no follow-on program of selling Russian high-enriched uranium from military stockpiles was anticipated once this program concludes in 2013. The 20-year program is equivalent to about 140,000 to 150,000 tonnes of natural uranium, and has supplied about half of US needs. By September 2010 it was 80% complete.

TVEL in 2010 won a tender to construct a fuel manufacturing plant in Ukraine, against competition from US company Westinghouse. Russia's long-term contract to supply fuel to the Ukrainian market is set to run until the end of the useful life of existing Ukrainian reactors, perhaps up to 35 years.

TVEL in 2014 secured contracts with foreign partners that exceeded $3 billion, keeping its ten-year order book at more than $10 billion. Contracts were signed with Finland, Hungary and Slovakia, as well as for research reactors in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Uzbekistan. TVEL said it has 17% of the global nuclear fuel supply market.

Rosatom has claimed to be able to undercut world prices for nuclear fuel and services by some 30%.

It was also pushing ahead with plans to store and probably reprocess foreign spent fuel, and earlier the Russian parliament overwhelmingly supported a change in legislation to allow this. The proposal involved some 10% of the world's spent fuel over ten years, or perhaps up to 20,000 tonnes of spent fuel, to raise US$ 20 billion, two thirds of which would be invested in expanding civil nuclear power. In July 2001 President Putin signed into effect three laws including one to allow this import of spent nuclear fuel (essentially an export of services, since Russia would be paid for it).

The President also set up a special commission to approve and oversee any spent fuel accepted, with five members each from the Duma, the Council, the government and presidential nominees, chaired by Dr Zhores Alferov, a parliamentarian, Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Nobel Prize physicist. This scheme was progressed in 2005 when the Duma ratified the Vienna Convention on civil liability for nuclear damage. However in July 2006 Rosatom announced it would not proceed with taking any foreign-origin used fuel, and the whole scheme lapsed.

Exports: general, plants and projects

Russia is engaged with international markets in nuclear technology, well beyond its traditional eastern European client states. An important step up in this activity was in August 2011 when Rosatom established Rusatom Overseas company, with authorized capital of RUR 1 billion. In mid-2015 it was split into JSC Rusatom Overseas Inc. and JSC Rusatom Energy International .

Rusatom Overseas Inc  is responsible for implementing non fuel-cycle projects in foreign markets, though apparently it also promotes products, services and technologies of the Russian nuclear industry generally to the world markets. According to Rosatom, "Rusatom Overseas acts as an integrator of Rosatom's complex solutions in nuclear energy, manages the promotion of the integrated offer and the development of Russian nuclear business abroad, as well as working to create a worldwide network of Rosatom marketing offices." Rusatom Overseas planned to open some 20 offices around the world by 2015, as a market research front and shop window for all Rosatom products and services.

Rusatom Energy International acts "as a developer of Rosatom's foreign projects, which are implemented with the build-own-operate (BOO) structure" and is a shareholder in those project companies. One of the first projects that Rosatom is implementing using the BOO structure is the Akkuyu plant in Turkey. A second project is Hanhikivi in Finland.

At 2015 Atomexpo it was announced that at the start of the year Rosatom’s foreign portfolio totaled US$ 101.4 billion, of which $66 billion was reactors, $21.8 billion was the contracted sales of EUP and SWU, and the remaining $13.6 billion was attributable to the sales of fabricated fuel assemblies and uranium. The total at the end of 2015 was over $110 billion, and export revenues in 2015 were $6.4 billion, up 20% from 2014. Rosatom’s goal is to gain half its revenue from exported goods and services. Its long-term strategy, approved by its board in late 2011, calls for foreign operations to account for half of its business by 2030. It aims to hold at least one-third of the global enrichment services market by then, as well as 5% of the market for pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel. The corporation said that it is "actively strengthening its position abroad for the construction of nuclear power plants." In April 2015 Rosatom said that it had contracts for 19 nuclear plants in nine countries, including those under construction (5). In September 2015 it said it had orders for 30 nuclear power reactors in 12 countries, at about $5 billion each to construct, and it was negotiating for 10 more. It said that the total value of all export orders was $300 billion. It aims to have orders for the construction of some 30 power reactors outside of Russia by 2030.

Atomstroyexport (ASE, now NIAEP-ASE) has had three reactor construction projects abroad, all involving VVER-1000 units. It is embarking upon and seeking more, as detailed in Nuclear Power in Russia companion paper, final section on Exports of Nuclear Reactors.

Since 2006 Rosatom has actively pursued nuclear cooperation deals in South Africa, Namibia, Chile and Morocco as well as with Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Kuwait. In 2012 an agreement with Japan was concluded.

Tenex has also entered agreements (now taken over by ARMZ) to mine and explore for uranium in South Africa (with local companies) and Canada (with Cameco).

In September 2008 ARMZ signed a MOU with a South Korean consortium headed by Kepco on strategic cooperation in developing uranium projects. This included joint exploration, mining and sales of natural uranium in the Russian Federation and possibly beyond, but no more has been heard of it.

International collaboration

Russia is engaged with international markets in nuclear energy, well beyond its traditional eastern European client states. In June 2011 Rosatom announced that it was establishing Rusatom Overseas company, a new structure to be responsible for implementing non fuel-cycle projects in foreign markets. It could act as principal contractor and also owner of foreign nuclear capacity under build-own-operate (BOO) arrangements. It is vigorously pursing markets in developing countries and is establishing eight offices abroad.

President Putin's Global Nuclear Infrastructure Initiative was announced early in 2006. This is in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2005 proposal for Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (MNA) and with the US Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The head of Rosatom said that he envisages Russia hosting four types of international nuclear fuel cycle service centres (INFCCs) as joint ventures financed by other countries. These would be secure and maybe under IAEA control. The first is an International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) – one of four or five proposed worldwide (see separate section). The second would be for reprocessing and storage of used nuclear fuel. The third would deal with training and certification of personnel, especially for emerging nuclear states. In this context there is a need for harmonized international standards, uniform safeguards and joint international centers. The fourth would be for R&D and to integrate new scientific achievements.

In March 2008 AtomEnergoProm signed a general framework agreement with Japan's Toshiba Corporation to explore collaboration in the civil nuclear power business. The Toshiba partnership is expected to include cooperation in areas including design and engineering for new nuclear power plants, manufacturing and maintenance of large equipment, and "front-end civilian nuclear fuel cycle business". In particular the construction of an advanced Russian centrifuge enrichment plant in Japan is envisaged, also possibly one in the USA. The companies say that the "complementary relations" could lead to the establishment of a strategic partnership. Toshiba owns 77% of US reactor builder Westinghouse and is also involved with other reactor technology.

Regarding reactor design, Rosatom has said it is keen to be involved in international projects for Generation IV reactor development and is keen to have international participation in fast neutron reactor development, as well as joint proposals for MOX fuel fabrication.

In April 2007 Red Star, a government-owned design bureau, and US company Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) agreed to collaborate on testing Lightbridge's seed and blanket fuel assemblies at the Kurchatov Institute with a view to using thorium-plutonium fuel in VVER-1000 reactors, partly in order to dispose of surplus military plutonium (see information papers on Fuel Fabrication and Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel for details).

In 2006 the former working relationship with Kazakhstan in nuclear fuel supplies was rebuilt. Kazatomprom has agreed to a major long-term program of strategic cooperation with Russia in uranium and nuclear fuel supply, as well as development of small reactors, effectively reuniting the two countries' interests in future exports of nuclear fuel to China, Japan, Korea, the USA and Western Europe.

In June 2010 Rosatom signed a major framework agreement with the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) covering "nuclear energy development strategy, nuclear fuel cycle, development of next-generation reactors, future gas coolant reactor systems, radiation safety and nuclear material safety, prevention and emergency measures." Much of the collaboration will be focused on reprocessing and waste, also sodium-cooled fast reactors. Subsequently EdF and Rosatom signed a further cooperation agreement covering R&D, nuclear fuel, and nuclear power plants - both existing and under construction.

In March 2007 Russia signed a cooperation declaration with the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), so that Russia became a regular observer in all NEA standing technical committees, bringing it much more into the mainstream of world nuclear industry development. Russia had been participating for some years in the NEA's work on reactor safety and nuclear regulation and is hosting an NEA project on reactor vessel melt-through. This agreement was expected to assist Russia's integration into the OECD, and in October 2011 Russia made an official request to join the NEA. It was accepted as the 31st member of the OECD NEA in May 2012, effective from January 2013. Russia will be represented by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rosatom, and nuclear regulator Rostechnadzor.

Over two decades to about 2010 a Russian-US coordinating committee* was discussing building a GT-MHR prototype at Seversk, primarily for weapons plutonium disposition. Today OKBM is responsible to collaboration with China on HTR development, though NIIAR and Kurchatov Institute are also involved.

* involving SC Rosatom, NIIAR, OKBM, RRC Kurchatov Institute and VNIINM on the Russian side and NNSA, General Atomics, Oak Ridge National Laboratory on the US side.

Research & development

In mid-2009 the Russian government said that it would provide more than RUR 120 billion (about US$3.89 billion) over 2010 to 2012 for a new program devoted to R&D on the next generation of nuclear power plants. It identified three priorities for the nuclear industry: improving the performance of light water reactors over the next two or three years, developing a closed fuel cycle based on deployment of fast reactors in the medium term, and developing nuclear fusion over the long term. Rosatom said that its 2014 spending on R&D would amount to RUR 27-28 billion (US$ 528 million), about 4.5% of its revenue. In 2013 it spent RUR 24 billion, and in 2012 RUR 22.7 billion on R&D. In 2015 Rosatom said that it invested 5% of its revenues in R&D “to reinforce our technological leadership.”

Many research reactors were constructed in the 1950s and 60s. In 2015, 52 non-military research and test reactors were operational in Russia, plus about three in former Soviet republics and eight Russian ones elsewhere. Most of these use ceramic fuel enriched to 36% or 90% U-235. Overall over 130 research reactors have been built based on Russian technology. MBIR is now under construction at Dimitrovgrad.

Kurchatov Institute

Russia has had substantial R&D on nuclear power for seven decades. The premier establishment for this is the Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, set up 1943 as the Laboratory No. 2 of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. In 2010 it joined the Skolkovo project, an R&D centre set up to rival Silicon Valley in the USA, and became a Federal State Unitary Enterprise. It has run twelve research reactors there, six of which are now shut down. The 24 kW F-1 research reactor was started up in December 1946 and has passed its 70th anniversary in operation. The largest reactor is IR-8, of 8 MWt, a high-flux unit used for isotope production.

The Kurchatov Institute has designed nuclear reactors for marine and space applications, and continues research on HTRs. Since 1995 it has been involved internationally with accounting, control and physical protection of nuclear materials. US Lightbridge Corporation's seed and blanket fuel assemblies are being tested there with a view to using thorium-based fuel in VVER-1000 reactors.

Kurchatov’s Molten Salt Actinide Recycler and Transmuter (MOSART) is fuelled only by transuranic fluorides from uranium and MOX LWR used fuel, without U or Th support. The 2400 MWt reactor has a homogeneous core of Li-Na-Be or Li-Be fluorides without graphite moderator and has reduced reprocessing compared with the original US design. Thorium may also be used, though MOSART is described as a burner-converter rather than a breeder.

Since 1955 the Institute has hosted the main experimental work on plasma physics and nuclear fusion, and the first tokamak systems were developed there. Since 1990, much of its funding comes from international cooperation and commercial projects.

Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI)

The Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute ( PNPI ) is near St Petersburg but part of the Kurchatov Institute. It was formerly the B.P. Konstantinov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PIYaF). In 1959 the 18 MWt WWR-M high-flux research reactor was put into operation, and in 1970 the 1 GeV proton synchrocyclotron SC-1000 started up, these continue in operation.

A 100 MWt high-flux reactor with 25 associated research facilities, PIK , achieved criticality in 2011 at Gatchina but further major work led to its launch at 100 kW in 2019. It uses 27 kg of 90% enriched uranium fuel, tenders for which were called in 2020. PIK is the most powerful high-flux research beam reactor in Russia and is planned to be the basis for the International Centre for Neutron Research. In October 2020 Glavgosexpertiza approved a project for the modernisation of the PIK reactor, and a further launch was announced in February 2021.

The Institute for High Energy Physics and the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics are also part of the Kurchatov Institute, as are the 'Prometheus' Central Research Institute of Structural Materials and the Research Institute of Chemical Reagents and High Purity Chemicals, which were previously part of the Ministry of Education and Science.

Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR/NIIAR)

Russia's State Scientific Centre – Research Institute of Atomic Reactors ( RIAR , or NIIAR) – said to be the biggest nuclear research centre in Russia, is in Dimitrovgrad (Melekess), in Ulyanovsk county 1300 km SE of Moscow. It was founded in 1956 to host both research and experimental reactors, and it researches fuel cycle, radiochemicals and radioactive waste management, as well as producing radionuclides for medicine and industry. It hosts the main R&D on electrometallurgical pyroprocessing, especially for fast reactors, and associated vibropacked fuel technology for these.

RIAR/NIIAR has the largest materials study laboratory in Eurasia, used particularly for irradiated fuel.* The complex's major future role will be in fuel reprocessing. The initial fuel for MBIR is likely to be from reprocessed BOR-60 fuel, as also intended for SVBR-100. In 2014 construction of a new multifunctional radiochemical research centre for closed fuel cycles for fast reactors commenced as part of the revised federal target programme for 2010-2015 and until 2020. Fuel research at RIAR already includes integration of minor actinides into FNR closed fuel cycle, nitride fuel (both mononitride and U-Pu nitride), metallic fuel (U-Pu-Zr, U-Al, U-Be) and RBMK spent fuel conditioning. It also is working on molten salt fuel – reprocessing and minor actinide behaviour, though Kurchatov Institute seems to be the main locus of MSR research.

* In 2010 TerraPower from the USA proposed that RIAR should carry out in-pile tests and post-irradiation examinations of structural materials and fuel specimens planned for its travelling-wave reactor. A final agreement was expected in November, but apparently did not eventuate.

RIAR's first research reactor – SM – has been running since 1961 and now produces radioisotopes and does materials testing. It is a 100 MWt very high-flux water-cooled pressure vessel-type reactor originally using 90% enriched fuel with a neutron trap that operates in the intermediate neutron spectrum. It has been modernised several times and as SM-3 it was recommissioned in 1993. In 2020 it again had a new core. It is expected to operate until 2040. 

The MIR-MR  loop-type reactor commissioned in 1967 is used for testing fuels in runs up to 40 days at up to 100 MWt. It has been important in developing fuel rod designs for power and naval reactors. It is testing the first batch of REMIX fuel and also accident-tolerant fuel (ATF). It has a beryllium moderator and uses 90% enriched fuel. It was due to be retired in 2020.

The small pool-type reactors RBT-6 & RBT-10/2 commissioned in 1975 and 1984 are used for long-term experiments and use the spent fuel assemblies from SM. They are 6 & 7 MWt respectively. 

As well as three other research reactors, the BOR-60 * experimental fast reactor is operated here by RIAR – the world’s only operating fast research reactor. It started up in 1969 and is to be replaced with the  MBIR , with four times the irradiation capacity.

* BOR = bystry opytniy reaktor. BOR-60 was licensed to 2015 but was extended to December 2020.

The multi-purpose fast neutron research reactor – MBIR* – will be a 150 MWt multi-loop reactor capable of testing lead or lead-bismuth and gas coolants as well as sodium, simultaneously in three parallel outside loops. Initially it will have sodium coolant. It will run on vibropacked MOX fuel with plutonium content of 38%, produced at RIAR in existing facilities. A 24% Pu fuel may also be used. RIAR intends to set up an on-site closed fuel cycle for it, using pyrochemical reprocessing it has developed at pilot scale. MBIR’s cost was estimated at RUR 40 billion in 2015. Rostechnadzor granted a site licence to RIAR in August 2014, and a construction licence in May 2015. Construction started in September 2015. Completion was expected in 2020, but the project was paused after starting construction. In November 2020 Rosatom appointed a new contractor, AO Institut Orgenergostroy, and construction resumed, with commissioning expected in 2028. The reactor pressure vessel is being made by Atommash at Volgodonsk.

* MBIR = mnogotselevoy issledovatilskiy reaktor na bystrych neytronach.

Russia's only boiling water reactor, the prototype VK-50 of 200 MWt was commissioned in 1964 and was due to be retired in 2020.

Rosatom is setting up an International Research Centre (IRC) based on MBIR and is inviting international participation in connection with the IAEA INPRO programme. In June 2013 an agreement with France and the USA was signed to this end. In April 2017 Rosatom was soliciting Japanese involvement. The full MBIR research complex is now budgeted at $1 billion, with the Russian budget already having provided $300 million from the federal target programme. Pre-construction shares of 1% were being offered for $10 million, allowing involvement in detailed design of irradiation facilities. From 2020 the fee would rise to $36 million per 1% share. RIAR will be the legal owner of MBIR, performing operational and administrative functions, while the International Research Centre will be the legal entity responsible for marketing and research management. In May 2017 Rosatom announced that the multifunctional radiochemical research facility under construction at RIAR would be included in the IRC, to be used for testing technologies to close the fast reactor fuel cycle.

The first 100 MWe Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor (SVBR) from Gidropress was to be built at RIAR, but the project was dropped in 2018. It was designed to use a wide variety of fuels, though the demonstration unit would initially have used uranium enriched to 16.3%. With U-Pu MOX fuel it would operate in closed cycle. It was described by Gidropress as a multi-function reactor, for power, heat or desalination.

RIAR has established a joint venture with JSC Izotop – Izotop-NIIAR – to produce Mo-99 at Dimitrovgrad from 2010, using newly-installed German equipment. This aimed to capture 20% of the world market for Mo-99 by 2012, and 40% subsequently. In September 2010 JSC Isotop signed a framework agreement with Canada-based MDS Nordion to explore commercial opportunities outside Russia on the basis of this JV, initially over ten years.

Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (FEI/IPPE)

In 1954 the world's first nuclear powered electricity generator began operation in the then closed city of Obninsk at the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering (FEI or IPPE). The AM-1* reactor is water-cooled and graphite-moderated, with a design capacity of 30 MWt or 5 MWe. It was similar in principle to the plutonium production reactors in the closed military cities and served as a prototype for other graphite channel reactor designs including the Chernobyl-type RBMK** reactors. AM-1 produced electricity until 1959 and was used until 2000 as a research facility and for the production of isotopes. FEI also bid to host the MBIR project.

* AM = atom mirny – peaceful atom

** RBMK = reaktor bolshoi moshchnosty kanalny – high power channel reactor

In the 1950s the FEI at Obninsk was also developing fast breeder reactors (FBRs), and in 1955 the BR-1* fast neutron reactor began operating. It produced no power but led directly to the BR-5 which started up in 1959 with a capacity of 5 MWt which was used to do the basic research necessary for designing sodium-cooled FBRs. It was upgraded and modernised in 1973 and then underwent major reconstruction in 1983 to become the BR-10 with a capacity of 8 MWt which is now used to investigate fuel endurance, to study materials and to produce radioisotopes.

* BN = bystry reaktor – fast reactor

Research & Development Institute for Power Engineering (NIKIET)

NIKIET in Moscow is one of Russia’s major nuclear design and research centres with a primary focus on advanced reactor technologies including those for regional power supplies, research and isotope production reactors, and neutronic systems for the international fusion reactor (ITER). 

NIKIET is at concept development stage with a seabed reactor module – SHELF – a 6 MWe, 28 MWt remotely-operated PWR with low-enriched fuel of UO 2 in aluminium alloy matrix. Fuel cycle is 56 months. The SHELF module uses an integral reactor with forced and natural circulation in the primary circuit, in which the core, steam generator, motor-driven circulation pump and control and protection system drive are housed in a cylindrical pressure vessel. The reactor and turbogenerator are in a cylindrical pod about 15 m long and 8 m diameter, sitting on the sea bed. It is intended as electricity supply for oil and gas developments in Arctic seas. In 2018 NIKIET also proposed its use for the RUR 100 billion Pavlovsky lead-zinc mine project in northern Novaya Zemlya.

In 2010 the government was to allocate RUR 500 million (about US$ 170 million) of federal funds to design a space nuclear propulsion and generation installation in the megawatt power range. In particular, SC Rosatom was to get RUR 430 million and Roskosmos (Russian Federal Space Agency) RUR 70 million to develop it. The work would be undertaken by (NIKIET) in Moscow, based on previous developments including those of nuclear rocket engines. A conceptual design was expected in 2011, with the basic design documentation and engineering design to follow in 2012. Tests were planned for 2018.

Since 2010 NIKIET is also involved with Luch Scientific Production Association (SPA Luch) and a Belarus organization, the Joint Institute for Power Engineering and Nuclear Research (Sosny), to design a small transportable nuclear reactor. The project draws on Sosny’s experience in designing the Pamir-630D truck-mounted small nuclear reactor, two of which were built in Belarus from 1976 during the Soviet era. This was a 5000 kWt/630 kWe HTR reactor using 45% enriched fuel in rods with zirconium hydride moderator and driving a gas turbine with dinitrogen tetroxide (N 2 O 4 ) through the Brayton cycle. After some operational experience in 1985-86 the Pamir project was scrapped. The new design will be a similar HTR concept but about 2 MWe.

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research

The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, at Dubna near Moscow, is an international physics research centre with 18 member states and six associate members. It has the IBR-2M fast periodic pulsed reactor of 2 MWt, commissioned in 1984 and modernised in 2010 with higher neutron flux. It uses plutonium oxide fuel. 

Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC)

At the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC), Zheleznogorsk the ADE2 reactor was the third nuclear reactor of its kind built in Russia and came on line in 1964, primarily as a plutonium production unit. However, from 1995 heat and electricity production became its main purposes. The ADE-2 operating experience contributed to technological measures to justify and extend service lives of RBMK reactors at nuclear power plants, with considerable economic benefit and safety improvement. This work was given a governmental science and technology award in 2009. ADE2 was closed for final decommissioning in April 2010 after "46 years of nearly faultless operation".

MCC Zheleznogorsk also produces granulated MOX for vibropacked FNR fuel, using both military and civil plutonium.

Other R&D establishments

PA Mayak  at Ozersk is the main production centre for radioisotopes.

The Institute for Reactor Materials  (IRM) is at Zarechny, near Beloyarsk, Penza oblast.

TVEL's A.A. Bochvar High Technology Research Institute of Inorganic Materials ( VNIINM ) at Mayak supplies components for fast reactor fuel assemblies. It earlier developed the technology for reprocessing spent uranium-beryllium fuel from liquid metal-cooled fast reactors in dismantled Alpha-class nuclear submarines.

The All-Russian Scientific and Research Institute for Nuclear Power Plant Operation ( VNIIAES ) in Moscow was founded in 1979 to provide scientific and technical support for operation of nuclear power plants aimed at improving their safety, reliability and efficiency as well as scientific coordination of the setup of mass-constructed nuclear power facilities.

In 2009 the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI) was renamed the National Research Nuclear University and reformed to incorporate a number of other educational establishments. While partly funded by Rosatom, it is the responsibility of the Federal Education Agency (Rosobrazovaniye).

Public opinion

An April 2008 survey carried out by the Levada Centre found that 72% of Russians were in favour of at least preserving the country's nuclear power capacity and 41% thought that nuclear was the only alternative to oil and gas as they deplete. Over half said that they were indignant about Soviet attempts to cover up news of the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

In April 2010 the Levada Centre polled 1600 adults and found that 37% supported current levels of nuclear power, 37% favoured its active development (making 74% positive), while 10% would like a phase-out and 4.3% would prefer to abandon it completely. 42.6% saw no alternative to nuclear power for replacing depleting oil and gas.

Immediately after the Fukushima accident in 2011 Levada had only 22% for active development, 30% maintaining current level (ie 52% positive), 27% wanting a phase-out and 12% wanting to abandon it.

In February 2012 a Levada Centre poll showed that 29% of respondents favoured active development of nuclear power, while 37% support retaining it at the current level, so 66% positive. Only 15% of suggested phasing it out, and 7% preferred abandoning nuclear.

The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) took a poll in April 2012 on the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. It found that 27% of Russians support nuclear power development – up from 16% in 2011, 38 % agree with the present level, and 26% want to reduce it. Nuclear development is supported by young (32%), highly-educated Russians (31%), residents of cities with a population of one million and more, large cities and towns (30-33%). Regarding safety, 35% consider plants of be sufficiently safe, and 57% don’t.

In 2015 a poll commissioned by Rosenergoatom found that a clear majority of citizens living near nuclear power plants were in favour of them, and that support had grown since 2013. Most figures for the local plants were more than 70% favourable, and for nuclear power development they were above 80%.

Non-proliferation

Russia is a nuclear weapons state, and a depository state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) under which a safeguards agreement has been in force since 1985. The Additional Protocol was ratified in 2007. However, Russia takes the view that voluntary application of IAEA safeguards are not meaningful for a nuclear weapons state and so they are not generally applied. One exception is the BN-600 Beloyarsk-3 reactor which is safeguarded so as to give experience of such units to IAEA inspectors.

However, this policy is modified in respect to some uranium imports. All facilities where imported uranium under certain bilateral treaties goes must be on the list of those eligible and open to international inspection, and this overrides the voluntary aspect of voluntary offer agreements. It includes conversion plants, enrichment, fuel fabrication and nuclear power plants. Also the IUEC at Angarsk will be open to inspection.

Russia undertook nuclear weapons tests from 1949 to 1990.

Russia's last plutonium production reactor which started up in 1964 was finally closed down in April 2010 - delayed because it also provided district heating, and replacement plant for this was ready until then. The reactor may be held in reserve for heating, not dismantled. The other two such production reactors were closed in 2008. All three closures are in accordance with a 2003 US-Russia agreement.

Peaceful Nuclear Explosions

The Soviet Union also used 116 nuclear explosions (81 in Russia) for geological research, creating underground gas storage, boosting oil and gas production and excavating reservoirs and canals. Most were in the 3-10 kiloton range and all occurred 1965-88.

Background: Soviet nuclear culture

In the 1950s and 1960s Russia seemed to be taking impressive steps to contest world leadership in civil development of nuclear energy. It had developed two major reactor designs, one from military plutonium production technology (the light water cooled graphite moderated reactor – RBMK), and one from naval propulsion units, very much as in USA (the VVER series - pressurised, water cooled and moderated). An ambitious plant, Atommash, to mass produce the latter design was taking shape near Volgodonsk, construction of numerous nuclear plants was in hand and the country had many skilled nuclear engineers.

But a technological arrogance developed, in the context of an impatient Soviet establishment. Then Atommash sunk into the Volga sediments, Chernobyl tragically vindicated western reactor design criteria, and the political structure which was not up to the task of safely utilising such technology fell apart. Atommash had been set up to produce eight sets of nuclear plant equipment each year (reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, refueling machines, pressurizers, service machinery – a total of 250 items). In 1981 it manufactured the first VVER-1000 pressure vessel, which was shipped to South Ukraine NPP. Later, its products were supplied to Balakovo, Smolensk (RBMK), and Kalinin in Russia, and Zaporozhe, Rovno and Khmelnitsky plants in Ukraine. By 1986 Atommash had produced 14 pressure vessels (of which five have remained at the factory), instead of the eight per year intended. Then Chernobyl put the whole nuclear industry into a long standby. Russia was disgraced technologically, and this was exacerbated by a series of incidents in its nuclear-propelled navy contrasting with a near-impeccable safety record in the US Navy.

An early indication of the technological carelessness was substantial pollution followed by a major accident at Mayak Chemical Combine (then known as Chelyabinsk-40) near Kyshtym in 1957. The failure of the cooling system for a tank storing many tonnes of dissolved nuclear waste resulted in a non-nuclear explosion having a force estimated at about 75 tonnes of TNT (310 GJ). This killed 200 people and released some 740 PBq of radioactivity, affecting thousands more. Up to 1951 the Mayak plant had dumped its waste into the Techa River, whose waters ultimately flow into the Ob River and Arctic Ocean. Then they were disposed of into Lake Karachay until at least 1953, when a storage facility for high-level waste was built – the source of the 1957 accident. Finally, a 1967 duststorm picked up a lot of radioactive material from the dry bed of Lake Karachay and deposited it on to the surrounding province. The outcome of these three events made some 26,000 square kilometres the most radioactively-polluted area on Earth by some estimates, comparable with Chernobyl.

After Chernobyl there was a significant change of culture in the Russian civil nuclear establishment, at least at the plant level, and this change was even more evident in the countries of eastern Europe who saw the opportunity for technological emancipation from Russia. By the early 1990s a number of western assistance programs were in place which addressed safety issues and helped to alter fundamentally the way things were done in the eastern bloc, including Russia itself. Design and operating deficiencies were tackled, and a safety culture started to emerge. At the same time some R&D programs were suspended.

Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Association of Nuclear Operators contributed strongly to huge gains in safety and reliability of Soviet-era nuclear plants – WANO having come into existence as a result of Chernobyl. In the first two years of WANO's existence, 1989-91, operating staff from every nuclear plant in the former Soviet Union visited plants in the west on technical exchange, and western personnel visited every FSU plant. A great deal of ongoing plant-to-plant cooperation, and subsequently a voluntary peer review program, grew out of these exchanges.

Notes & references

General references.

Prof V.Ivanov, WNA Symposium 2001, Prof A.Gagarinski and Mr A.Malyshev, WNA Symposium 2002 Josephson, Paul R, 1999, Red Atom - Russia's nuclear power program from Stalin to today Minatom 2000, Strategy of Nuclear Power Development in Russia O. Saraev, paper at WNA mid-term meeting in Moscow, May 2003 Rosenergoatom Bulletin 2002, esp. M.Rogov paper Perera, Judith 2003, Nuclear Power in the Former USSR , McCloskey, UK Kamenskikh, I, 2005, paper at WNA Symposium Kirienko, S. 2006, paper at World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, April and WNA Symposium, Sept Shchedrovitsky, P. 2007, paper at WNA Symposium, Sept Panov et al 2006, Floating Power Sources Based on Nuclear reactor Plants Rosenergoatom website Rosatom website nuclear.ru OECD NEA & IAEA, 2012, Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand – 'Red Book' Rybachenov, V. 2012, Disposition of Excess Weapons-grade Plutonium – problems and prospects, Centre for Arms Control, Energy & Environmental Studies Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs – A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) , International Atomic Energy Agency, September 2012 Diakov, A. & Podvig, P, March 2013, Spent nuclear fuel management in the Russian Federation Gavrilov, P.M. Sept 2015, Establishing the centralised ‘dry’ SNF storage and the MOX-fuel production for fast neutron reactors at MCC site, World Nuclear Association 2015 Symposium presentation. M. Baryshnikov, REMIX Nuclear Fuel Cycle, World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, Abu Dhabi, April 2016 M. Aboimov, Enriching the Past (legacy nuclear materials), World Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference, Abu Dhabi, April 2016 A.V. Boitsov et al , Uranium production and environmental restoration at the Priargunsky Centre, Russian Federation , International Atomic Energy Agency (2002) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) & Northern Development Environmental Partnership, Overcoming the Legacy of the Soviet Nuclear Fleet , Andreeva Bay 27 June 2017 Anatoli Diakov. The History of Plutonium Production in Russia , Science & Global Security, 19, pp. 28-45 (2011)

Related information

Nuclear fuel cycle overview, russia: nuclear power, you may also be interested in.

Is radiation safe?

Externalities of electricity generation, research reactors.

For the first time Rosatom Fuel Division supplied fresh nuclear fuel to the world’s only floating nuclear cogeneration plant in the Arctic

The fuel was supplied to the northernmost town of Russia along the Northern Sea Route.

The first in the history of the power plant refueling, that is, the replacement of spent nuclear fuel with fresh one, is planned to begin before 2024. The manufacturer of nuclear fuel for all Russian nuclear icebreakers, as well as the Akademik Lomonosov FNPP, is Machinery Manufacturing Plant, Joint-Stock Company (MSZ JSC), a company of Rosatom Fuel Company TVEL that is based in Elektrostal, Moscow Region.

The FNPP includes two KLT-40S reactors of the icebreaking type. Unlike convenient ground-based large reactors (that require partial replacement of fuel rods once every 12-18 months), in the case of these reactors, the refueling takes place once every few years and includes unloading of the entire reactor core and loading of fresh fuel into the reactor.

The cores of KLT-40 reactors of the Akademik Lomonosov floating power unit have a number of advantages compared to the reference ones: a cassette core was used for the first time in the history of the unit, which made it possible to increase the fuel energy resource to 3-3.5 years between refuelings, and also reduce the fuel component of the electricity cost by one and a half times. The FNPP operating experience formed the basis for the designs of reactors for nuclear icebreakers of the newest series 22220. Three such icebreakers have been launched by now.

For the first time the power units of the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant were connected to the grid in December 2019, and put into commercial operation in May 2020. The supply of nuclear fuel from Elektrostal to Pevek and its loading into the second reactor is planned for 2024. The total power of the Akademik Lomonosov FNPP, supplied to the coastal grid of Pevek without thermal energy consumption on shore, is about 76 MW, being about 44 MW in the maximum thermal power supply mode. The FNPP generated 194 million kWh according to the results of 2023. The population of Pevek is just a little more than 4 thousand, while the FNPP has a potential for supplying electricity to a city with a population of up to 100 thousand people. After the FNPP commissioning two goals were achieved. These include first of all the replacement of the retiring capacities of the Bilibino NPP, which has been operating since 1974, as well as the Chaunskaya TPP, which has already been operating for more than 70 years. Secondly, energy is supplied to the main mining companies in western Chukotka in the Chaun-Bilibino energy hub a large ore and metal cluster, including gold mining companies and projects related to the development of the Baimsk ore zone. In September 2023, a 110 kilovolt power transmission line with a length of 490 kilometers was put into operation, connecting the towns of Pevek and Bilibino. The line increased the reliability of energy supply from the FNPP to both Bilibino consumers and mining companies, the largest of which is the Baimsky GOK. The comprehensive development of the Russian Arctic is a national strategic priority. To increase the NSR traffic is of paramount importance for accomplishment of the tasks set in the field of cargo shipping. This logistics corridor is being developed due regular freight voyages, construction of new nuclear-powered icebreakers and modernization of the relevant infrastructure. Rosatom companies are actively involved in this work. Rosatom Fuel Company TVEL (Rosatom Fuel Division) includes companies fabricating nuclear fuel, converting and enriching uranium, manufacturing gas centrifuges, conducting researches and producing designs. As the only nuclear fuel supplier to Russian NPPs, TVEL supplies fuel for a total of 75 power reactors in 15 countries, for research reactors in nine countries, as well as for propulsion reactors of the Russian nuclear fleet. Every sixth power reactor in the world runs on TVEL fuel. Rosatom Fuel Division is the world’s largest producer of enriched uranium and the leader on the global stable isotope market. The Fuel Division is actively developing new businesses in chemistry, metallurgy, energy storage technologies, 3D printing, digital products, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. TVEL also includes Rosatom integrators for additive technologies and electricity storage systems. Rosenergoatom, Joint-Stock Company is part of Rosatom Electric Power Division and one of the largest companies in the industry acting as an operator of nuclear power plants. It includes, as its branches, 11 operating NPPs, including the FNPP, the Scientific and Technical Center for Emergency Operations at NPPs, Design and Engineering as well as Technological companies. In total, 37 power units with a total installed capacity of over 29.5 GW are in operation at 11 nuclear power plants in Russia. Machinery Manufacturing Plant, Joint-Stock Company (MSZ JSC, Elektrostal) is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of fuel for nuclear power plants. The company produces fuel assemblies for VVER-440, VVER-1000, RBMK-1000, BN-600,800, VK-50, EGP-6; powders and fuel pellets intended for supply to foreign customers. It also produces nuclear fuel for research reactors. The plant belongs to the TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom.

Rosatom obtained a license for the first land-based SMR in Russia

On April 21, Rosenergoatom obtained a license issued by Rostekhnadzor to construct the Yakutsk land-based SMR in the Ust-Yansky District of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia).

ROSATOM and FEDC agree to cooperate in the construction of Russia's first onshore SNPP

ROSATOM and FEDC have signed a cooperation agreement to build Russia's first onshore SNPP in Yakutia.

Rosatom develops nuclear fuel for modernized floating power units

Rosatom has completed the development of nuclear fuel for the RITM-200S small modular reactor designed for the upgraded floating power units.

• POWER Plant ID
• POWER Events
• Connected Plant
• Distributed Energy
• International
• COVID-19 Coverage
• Carbon Capture
• Climate change
• Cybersecurity
• Distributed Power
• Electric Vehicles
• Energy Storage
• Environmental
• Instrumentation & Controls
• Legal & Regulatory
• Legislative
• Ocean/Marine
• Physical security
• Plant Design
• Power Demand
• Research and Development
• Supply Chains
• Tidal Power
• Waste to Energy
• About POWER
• Privacy Policy
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging
• Accessibility Statement

New modification of Russian VVER-440 fuel loaded at Paks NPP in Hungary

DECEMBER 14, 2020 — After the recent refueling at power unit 3 of the Hungarian Paks NPP, its VVER-440 reactor has been loaded with a batch of fresh fuel including 18 fuel bundles of the new modification. The new fuel will be introduced at all four operating power units of the Paks NPP, and the amount of new-modification bundles in each refueling will be increased gradually.

Development of the new VVER-440 fuel modification was completed in 2020 under the contract between TVEL JSC and MVM Paks NPP Ltd. Its introduction would optimize the hydro-uranium ratio in the reactor core, enabling to increase the efficiency of fuel usage and advance the economic performance of the power plant operation. All VVER-440 fuel modifications are manufactured at the Elemash Machine-Building Plant, a facility of TVEL Fuel Company in Elektrostal, Moscow Region.

“Introduction of a new fuel is an option to improve technical and economic performance of a nuclear power plant without substantial investment. We are actively engaged in development of new models and modifications of VVER-440 fuel for power plants in Europe. The projects of the new fuels for Loviisa NPP in Finland, Dukovany NPP in the Czech Republic, Mochovce and Bohunice NPPs in Slovakia, are currently at various stages of implementation. Despite the same reactor model, these projects are quite different technically and conceptually, since we take into account the individual needs and requirements of our customers,” commented Natalia Nikipelova, President of TVEL JSC.

For reference:

The project of development and validation of the new fuel has been accomplished with participation of a number of Russian nuclear industry enterprises, such as OKB Gidropress (a part of Rosatom machine-building division Atomenergomash), Bochvar Institute (material science research facility of TVEL Fuel Company), Elemash Machine-building plant and Kurchatov Institute national research center. At the site of OKB Gidropress research and experiment facility, the new fuel passed a range of hydraulic, longevity and vibration tests.

Paks NPP is the only functioning nuclear power plant in Hungary with total installed capacity 2000 MWe. It operates four similar units powered by VVER-440 reactors and commissioned one by one in 1982-1987. Currently, Paks NPP is the only VVER-440 plant in the world operating in extended 15-monthes fuel cycle. The power plant produces about 15 bln kWh annually, about a half of electric power generation in Hungary. In 2018, the project of increasing the duration of Paks NPP fuel cycle won the European competition Quality Innovation Award in the nomination “Innovations of large enterprises”. Russian engineers from TVEL JSC, Kurchatov Institute, OKB Gidropress, Bochvar Institute and Elemash Machine-building plant provided assistance to the Hungarian colleagues in accomplishment of the project.

  TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom incorporates enterprises for the fabrication of nuclear fuel, conversion and enrichment of uranium, production of gas centrifuges, as well as research and design organizations. It is the only supplier of nuclear fuel for Russian nuclear power plants. TVEL Fuel Company of Rosatom provides nuclear fuel for 73 power reactors in 13 countries worldwide, research reactors in eight countries, as well as transport reactors of the Russian nuclear fleet. Every sixth power reactor in the world operates on fuel manufactured by TVEL.  www.tvel.ru