The THTR Circulars from 2004

***

***

THTR Circular No. 91 July 2004

The HTR line in Russia yesterday and today

Rising from the Ruins)

Fifty years ago, on June 50, 26, nuclear power flowed into a public power grid for the first time in the world at the Obninsk nuclear power plant near Moscow. Reason enough for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to look hopefully into the future with several hundred scientists at the anniversary conference in Moscow. And where this hope is combined with solid economic interests, the HTR lobby is not far either.

Christopher Schrader prays down the same litany on the science page of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" on June 30th, 6: "The high-temperature reactor, on the other hand, has inherent safety." It can be designed in such a way that it goes out if the cooling fails and the residual heat flows off by itself, 'says Christopher Wesselmann from the VGB Power Tech association. The decommissioned German reactor with this technology in Hamm-Uentrop was too big to be inherently safe, but companies in South Africa are developing smaller models Waste problem. "

Behind "VGB Power Tech" is the well-known "Association of Large Power Plant Operators" from Essen. They have been HTR sponsors for decades. It is astonishing how all critical thinking among journalists can be brought to a standstill with the banal magic formula "because of physical laws of nature no meltdown is possible"; a critical letter to the editor was not printed. We still know all of this from the 70s.

The USSR has been running its own HTR research program since that time¹. As early as March 1976, the government agreed a collaboration with Brown, Boveri & Cie AG (BBC) and Hoch Temperatur-Reaktorbau GmbH (HRB). The FAZ wrote on April 13.04.1976th, XNUMX in "Blick durch die Wirtschaft": "The Soviet side would like to increasingly cooperate with German industry in this field because they consider the high-temperature reactor to be one of the most promising reactors." "However, there was no fruitful collaboration," stated Ulrich Kirchner in his book "The High Temperature Reactor"² firmly.

In contrast, the Soviet Union was at least a member of a commission of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that had been working specifically on HTR technology since 1977³. The chairman of the commission, on which a total of thirteen countries worked at the time, was for many years the Russian Konstantinnov, who was active in this field until the 80s. The interest of the Soviet Union continued in the period that followed. "The HTR cooperation was also regularly on the agenda in the following years. For example at the annual meeting of the joint economic commission of the FRG and the USSR in 1980 as well as during the Bonn visit of the Soviet state and party leader Brezhnev in 1981."⁴

On January 21.01.1986st, 100 the "Westfälische Anzeiger" reported that a development consortium led by Innotec (Essen) was conducting promising negotiations with SU about the export of the HTR 35. BBC, high-temperature reactor construction, Deutsche Babcock Maschinenbau, Mannesmann-Anlagenbau and Strabag Bau AG were all involved in Innotec. Innotec founder and owner Karlheinz Bund, then head of Ruhrkohle, personally pushed the HTR project forward. The SU was offered financial aid, operational management and staff training. For the 70 million DM development work, 1987 percent of the German taxpayers should pay. At the beginning of XNUMX the negotiations between Innotec and SU were successfully concluded.

On April 5, 1987, a Soviet delegation visited the THTR in Hamm-Uentrop, which, however, tellingly, had just been switched off because the licensing authority had ordered another inspection due to defective lines. The WA wrote on April 06.04.1987th, XNUMX: "The Soviet delegation was particularly interested in the costs of the nuclear power plant. Your questions were also aimed at radiation exposure ..."

After another Soviet group of experts visited the THTR on April 22, 1987, the USSR Ambassador Kwizinski from Bonn insisted on visiting Hamm-Uentrop personally one day later. However, now, of all times, when the reactor was switched off, some of the ailing welding wire areas on the lines had to be replaced. At this point in time, the HTR lobbyists lost all sense of reality and trumpeted, read on April 23.04.1987, 10 in the WA: "In a ZDF interview, a spokesman for the manufacturer consortium was confident that there might soon be sales contracts worth billions for another 100 XNUMX -Megawatt reactors with Moscow. " Just one day later, "Die Zeit" wrote worriedly: "With the signing of the preliminary contract, it has of course not yet been decided whether the contract will then also be awarded to the consortium led by Innotec. Apparently the KWU still wants to get involved. The Erlangen-based Siemens subsidiary is also negotiating the Russians about a possibility of cooperation in the HTR sector. " The weekly newspaper also points out the military relevance of the HTR line. The USA could veto a German export to the Soviet Union, as this could fall under the CoCom list.

After BBC and Innotec competitor KWU (Siemens) had also signed an agreement with SU at the end of 1987 on cooperation in the construction of smaller module HTRs, in March 1988 BBC and HRB signed another agreement with SU for the Cooperation in the construction of 500 MW HTRs. On March 12.03.1988th, XNUMX, the Ruhr-Nachrichten euphorically carried the headline: "The HTR is conquering the world" and hoped for a turnaround in the exit debate shortly after the Chernobyl disaster: "The beginning global triumph of high-temperature reactors may also encourage a reassessment of this high-tech by the NRW social democracy. "

Quite alarmed by this development, as GAL councilor I wrote an open letter for this council group on August 01.08.1988st, 04.08.1988 to the embassy of the USSR and to "Pravda", which was published in German for a short time at that time, and pointed out the dangers and current incidents at the time THTR attentively. The WA headline on August XNUMXth, XNUMX: "GALlier test Glasnost." Result negative, no reaction.

On September 12.09.1988th, 220, the Research Minister Riesenhuber visited the XNUMX-strong workforce of the THTR in Hamm-Uentrop and encouraged them in view of the critical energy policy discussion: "The Soviet Union is currently paying the greatest attention to German HTR technology, which can convince with its proven safety, Riesenhuber said. These negotiations are particularly promising because the Soviets want to quintuple the number of their nuclear power plants, said Riesenhuber. "⁵

In view of the growing problems in the operation of the THTR, the nuclear industry was in danger of running out of time. Either she succeeds in exporting within a short period of time or many nuclear technicians have to change jobs.

On October 24.10.1988th, 200, Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl proved himself to be the savior in times of need, because during his visit to Moscow - celebrated as a major media event - a general contract for the delivery of the module HTR to the SU was signed. A consortium of companies consisting of Siemens / KWU and ABB was involved. The 1000 MW HTR was to be built in Dimitrovgrad at the Niiar nuclear research center, XNUMX kilometers east of Moscow⁶. In the media hype, however, it was lost that this framework contract did not yet represent a contract award, two years of further preparatory work would be necessary and that the Soviets would rather carry out the majority of the work themselves and in the end only a meager 400 million DM should fall off for the German corporations.

But it got worse. Ulrich Kirchner wrote: "At the beginning of next year the negotiations stood still for about four weeks. By May 1989, a concrete elaboration of the extent of West German participation in the planning of the test facility could not be achieved. The second of the four detailed contracts became the general contract , which should have been signed in March 1989. When the Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev paid his return visit to the FRG in June 1989, during which the further modalities were to be negotiated, this project no longer played a role; the media remained silent about this. "⁷

In addition, Kirchner once again emphasizes the military-political dimension of the HTR project in his book by referring to the Eastern European advisor of the later US President Bush, who refused to be too willing to supply the SU with high-end nuclear technology, as this would lead to a military and strategic strengthening of the Eastern Bloc. "The HTR order was considered to be the 'most delicate German deal with the East'"⁸.

In Germany at that time the Hanoverian Ministry of the Environment carried out the location-independent approval process for HTR modules (which was later canceled). With the exclusion of those affected, it should be possible to build these small nuclear power plants in the metropolitan areas of Germany. In January 1989 it became known that the first German test center for nuclear facilities would be conveniently set up by TÜV Hanover in the USSR. "The permanent establishment was proposed to the Soviet government in connection with the agreement on the joint development and construction of new high-temperature reactors for the generation of electricity and heat and was approved by the Soviet contracting parties."⁹.

Two months after the GDR had also expressed interest in buying a West German HTR, "Our Time", newspaper of the German Communist Party, dealt critically with the HTR in a lengthy article on January 16.01.1989, XNUMX.

On May 12.05.1989, XNUMX, "Die Zeit" reported renewed difficulties in German / Soviet cooperation: "The negotiations with the Soviets are proving to be 'difficult and tough', mainly because of the foreign exchange needs in the USSR, as Siemens spokespersons know The socialist negotiators are trying with all their arguments to lower the price. The HTR shutdown in Hamm-Uentrop is therefore not at all inconvenient for them. " Lothar Hahn describes the difficult situation of the German nuclear companies as follows: "Under the pressure to build a reference plant, however, they have agreed to accept the compensation business"¹⁰.

In May 1989, the former competitors ABB and Siemens founded the high temperature reactor GmbH (HTR) due to the narrowing of the market. This pursued the HTR 500, HTR modules and the GHR 10 as system variants. "HTR-GmbH will also assume the rights and obligations from the general contract with the USSR . "¹¹

But at the beginning of June 1989 the nuclear industry no longer sounded very euphoric in view of the impending closure of the THTR: "However, through patient persuasion, the German HTR experts succeeded in convincing the Russians that this discussion was not technical, but political. (...) So it is first of all for a few years to save the HTR technology through a 'hibernation phase'. "¹²

After the final shutdown of the THTR was announced by the NRW state government on August 16, 1989, this also had far-reaching consequences for the export of the HTR line.

On September 01.09.1989, 5, the ABB spokesman Rumber announced in the WAZ about the reactor deal with the SU: "It may be that the contract will not come about now." On September 9th, VEW boss Knizia let all his connections play again and invited the Energy Club of the Soviet Academy of Sciences to the Ruhr area for the next year¹³.

Also in September 1989, after the much-noticed general contract of 1988, of all things, the nuclear industry had to admit the tendency to defeat its desire for expansion in the industry magazine "Sieg Tech": "Now the manufacturers would be happy if they received an order volume of 100 million in a first step from this contract DM could achieve. "¹⁴ The consequence: an emergency program to "bridge a five to six year dry spell" to save the HTR line was proposed to the energy supply companies. As it turned out later, it actually worked in the end.

On September 15.09.1989, 90, Interatom expressed itself in more concrete terms in the VDI-Nachrichten about the difficult negotiation situation: "The Soviets use the deficiency that there is no functioning high-temperature reactor as a 'showcase' in this country to lower prices successful construction and operation in the USSR, the HTR company could demonstrate the reactor to other customers. (...) Interatom had estimated the so-called project planning phase at DM XNUMX million.

From September 17th to 24th, a joint seminar by the German Greens and the CPSU on nuclear power took place in Moscow. On the Soviet side, high-ranking official representatives of the SU and members of ecological groups took part. On the German side, the Öko-Institut (including Lothar Hahn) and citizens' groups were also present. In addition to the Chernobyl catastrophe, the discussion about the HTR line took up a lot of space: "The possibility of military use of an HTR module was touched upon. If lithium is added to the graphite of the fuel elements beyond the unavoidable proportion, a targeted extraction of Tritium, a coveted atomic bomb material can be achieved.

The argument of the Soviet scientists was strongly influenced by an abstract-physical consideration of individual questions. This includes, among other things, the idea that the HTR module is 'safe enough' because of the 'laws of nature' that heat is dissipated from the reactor core into the reactor building and from there to the outside.

The relationship of the Soviet scientists to the KFA Jülich becomes clear in this argumentation. Apparently they have hardly paid attention to practical-technical problems that only become apparent during the operation of a system and play a decisive role in continuous power operation. (...)

As discussion partners, they (the Soviet side, RB) had previously only got to know representatives of other nuclear institutions, above all the KFA Jülich. This explains why they had previously only perceived solutions other than large-scale technical solutions for energy production as 'technical nonsense' and the resistance movement against nuclear technology as 'emotional confusion'. Up until then, direct encounters with ecologically oriented scientists were just as unknown to them as they were with oppositional movements in the Soviet Union itself. "¹⁵

On February 5, 1990, the VDI-Nachrichten reported: "The German power plant industry does not anticipate the construction of a high-temperature reactor in the Soviet Union for the time being. According to Dr. Manfred Simon, board member of ABB Mannheim, the project will not be implemented for the time being. The reasons lie in changed priorities in the Soviet energy policy as well as in an anti-nuclear power wave in some parts of the country. The decisive factor, however, is the lack of financial resources. And the shutdown of the prototype THTR-300 in Hamm-Uentrop was not exactly beneficial for the project. "

At the end of 1990 the HTR lobbyists tried to get out of the defensive by publishing the following 400-page book at a price of 128 DM: "AVR - Experimental High-Temperature Reactor". In a meeting it says: "35 recognized engineers and natural scientists report in the English-language book on the operating results and the future prospects of the gas-cooled high-temperature reactor. Since the future of the high-temperature reactor in the Federal Republic is currently uncertain, the English book edition aims to provide knowledge of this in the The advanced energy technology developed in the Federal Republic of Germany will be disseminated in English-speaking countries. With this book, the VDI-Gesellschaft Energietechnik, as the publisher, would like to make a contribution to the increased use of HTRs in the future in energy supply at home and abroad. "¹⁶

As early as April 25, 1991, VEW boss Knizia was tinkering with his modern stab in the back legend, in which the great international future of the HTR was destroyed in his own country: "Knizia complained that the high-temperature reactor had been 'stalled', i.e. capital had been destroyed, although nothing is more necessary than investment capital. "

In May 1991 the "Atomwirtschaft" (atw) wrote regretfully that it had not "succeeded in commissioning a specific project. Only little chances are seen for this in the near future. For this reason, the two parent companies have decided to to reduce their HTR activities. But they want to retain the know-how to be able to fall back on it at any time. "

At the congress of the International Atomic Energy Agency from June 24 to 27, 1991 in Vienna, there was intensive discussion of HTR projects in Japan, China, Indonesia, the USA, Poland and Germany. Professor Schwarz from VEW reported on the Soviet contribution: "VN Grebennik from the Kurt Schatow Institute in Moscow reported on progress in the planning of the Soviet HTR construction line, the modular pebble bed reactor VGM, and stated the underlying safety-related framework conditions."¹⁷

From now on the curtain falls for us ordinary people and we don't know what happened behind the scenes in the following seven years ...

In 1998 the Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) published the book "Use of plutonium in the pebble-bed high-temperature reactor" by Mikhail Khorochev. The FZJ writes the following about the content of the 107 pages: "The present work deals with the use of weapons and reactor plutonium in high-temperature reactors with spherical fuel elements. A modular system with an output of 350 MW is used as an application example_th examined in detail. The aim of the work was to get to know the possibilities and limits for an effective burnup of plutonium in pebble bed reactors. (...) Two reference cases were derived from the overview study, one for the use of reactor plutonium in connection with uranium, the other for weapons plutonium in connection with thorium as a breeding material. With both reference cycles it can be demonstrated that the concept of the HTR-350 module reactor is a very good instrument for eliminating both types of plutonium. "

On August 3, 1999, the background of this research work by the FZJ will be examined in more detail in a press release and we will learn astonishing things. As part of an international consortium, the French reactor construction company "Framatome" is participating in the development and later construction of a new generation of mini-reactors. They are supposed to have an output of 'only' 250 to 300 megawatts General Atomics in association with the US Department of Energy, the Russian Atomic Energy Agency Minatom and the Japanese group - Fuji Electric.

The project, the technical structures and features of which were recently presented to the partners of the demanding project in Paris, is a new development of high-temperature reactors with the model designation GT-MHR (Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor).

After Framatome, the four partners decided in Paris to continue the long preparatory work for the project. The GT-MHR reactor, which is to be cooled by helium, is said to be particularly useful because, in addition to uranium, it can also burn the dangerous plutonium.

According to Dominique Vignon, the head of Framatome, the GT-MHR reactor will have all the features and capabilities to assert itself technically and economically on the world market in 2010 with product units for thermal and electrical energy of medium performance. (...) According to Framatome, the costs for the development studies of the GT-MHR should come to around 320 million dollars. It would take $ 400 million to build the prototype and $ 300 million to build the first reactor in series. The first GT-MHR is to be built by or for Russia in Siberia. However, according to Russian calculations, this project would cost $ 730 million. "¹⁸

From May 01.05.1999, 30.04.2001 to April XNUMX, XNUMX, the scientists Kübler and Schmidt are working on the Gas Cooled HTR Network (GHTRN) as part of a research project at the University of Stuttgart in order to develop and document the existing safety features of this line.¹⁹

In June 2001 the HTR network was presented at the ISTC conference (International Scientific and Technical Center; this organization is mainly financed by the USA, according to "Russland aktuell") and a cooperation with the Russian Kurchatow Institute mentioned in 1991 and initiated with the OKB (experimental design office; obviously part of the military-industrial complex).

In August-September 2001, the well-known HTR friend Chrysanth Marnet (AVR, see RB No. 88) reported in his article on the HTR Congress in Beijing from March 19 to 21, 2001 about the planned Russian GT-MHR: "Man hopes next year that the decision will be made to put the plans into practice. "²⁰

In May 2002, the conversion of plutonium is described in more detail in the "Western Option" concept and a schedule is set up until 2026: "The present study is based on an agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America from September 2000. It is planned According to this, the conversion of 34 tons of weapons plutonium in both countries, a goal that is also supported by other G-8 countries.While the USA is fulfilling its part of the responsibility, the Russian program depends on financial support from Western countries Options designated as the basic scenario have been identified. The necessary funds of around US $ 2 billion have not yet been raised to implement them. (...) The attractiveness of the Western Option also lies in its financial advantages, estimated at around US $ 1 billion. "²¹

In July 2002 a report on the HTR conference in Petten / Netherlands from April 22nd to 24th, 2002 reported on the Russian plans: "The first GT-MHR with 600 MW_th should be built no later than 2010 and the plans ready for construction should be ready in 2005. The total cost was put at US $ 355 million. The use of plutonium as an HTR fuel does not pose any physical problems in terms of reactor physics. This has now also been confirmed by the French side (Cogema / CEA). "²²

The scientific results report 2002 from Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) names its research for the "greatest possible minimization and conversion of plutonium" under tasks and goals.

The FZJ names the following Russian partners on its website for the nuclear cooperation of the last few years up to today in 2004:

NSI = studies on safety requirements for nuclear power plants.

OINPE = development of theoretical methods in nuclear physics.

RRC-KI = assessment of the stability of coated particles (in HTR fuel element balls, RB) in hypothetical accidents with the help of experiments on rapid transients.

Academy of Sciences = process and component technology as well as safety-related improvement of nuclear plants.

Horst Blume

Notes / references:

1 Lothar Hahn: "Assessment of domestic and foreign concepts for small high-temperature reactors", 1990, pp. 2-19

2 Ulrich Kirchner "The high-temperature reactor. Conflicts, interests, decisions", Campus Research, 1991, page 176

3 Anna Masuch "HTR Policy in the Soviet Union", 1990

4 "AK", 14.11.1988/8/XNUMX, page XNUMX

5 Ruhr News, September 13.09.1900, XNUMX

6 TAZ, 24.09.1988/XNUMX/XNUMX

7 Kirchner, see above, p. 177

8 Spiegel 1988, No. 42, p. 136, quoted in Kirchner p. 178

9 Hannoveraner Allgemeine Zeitung, January 12.01.1989, XNUMX

10 Hahn, see above, pp. 2-20

11 WAZ, 01.08.1989/XNUMX/XNUMX

12 "Sieg tech", 10/89, p. 13

13 WAZ, 06.09.1989/XNUMX/XNUMX

14 "Sieg tech", 18/89, p. 19

15 Anna Masuch: "On HTR Policy in the Soviet Union"

16 BWK, Jan / Feb. 1991

17 VGB power plant technology 12/1991

18 Aargauer Zeitung of August 03.08.1999rd, 105, quoted from aaa No. 63, also in THTR-RB No. XNUMX

19 www.ike.uni-stuttgart.de

20 atw 8/9, 2001

21 atw 5, 2002

22 atw 7, 2002

Dear readers!

As an exception, this issue is devoted to only one topic (Russia). Many other things have happened that affect the HTR. Under News you can read which research work has been carried out specifically by Forschungszentrum Jülich since 1998 under red green and how the individual research areas are to be classified. This can also be read on paper in the next edition of the newsletter, which will appear soon.

***

Top

***

***

Top

***