El.kz talks with Timur Zhantikin, General Director of Kazakhstan Nuclear Power Plants JSC
Discussions about the need to build a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan continue. Experts discuss environmental and economic components, in general, the need to use nuclear energy in the country. And what should a nuclear power plant be like if a decision on its construction is made?
Timur Zhantikin, one of the well-known specialists in the field of nuclear energy in Kazakhstan, General Director of Kazakhstan Nuclear Power Plants (KNPP) JSC, told about what requirements will be imposed on the project, and what options are being considered.
- Timur Miftakhovich, the discussion in the expert community is active. But society still does not know which project Kazakhstan can choose, what requirements will be imposed on this project?
- If we talk about the requirements, we consider the reactors of generation 3 and 3+ available on the market. These are increased security and improved economic performance. Today, there are proposals from companies from Russia, China, France, the United States and South Korea, memorandums of understanding have been signed with many of them. The decision to choose a project for the first nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan will be made taking into account many parameters, where safety and the economy will be key.
- What is meant by the concept of increased security?
- This is a minimized level of risk of any emergency situations. Nuclear power is actively developing, and modern reactors of generation 3 and 3+ in this respect are significantly superior to second-generation reactors. An analogy can be drawn with civil aviation - at first there were small aircraft, the requirement for which was "just to fly", then there was a progressive development, the aircraft became more reliable and economical, and now we are safely flying on large reliable liners.
The development of nuclear energy also takes into account everything that happened earlier. Conventionally, according to the stages of development, the reactors are divided into several generations. The first is the reactors at nuclear power plants, which have shown the fundamental possibility of using nuclear energy for power generation. Gradually, the reactors were improved.
But there were several major accidents – let me remind you that the first in 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the second was the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and the last at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. All this happened at a nuclear power plant with second-generation reactors. After each accident, specialists work out absolutely all the nuances, understand each step in order to understand exactly what was done wrong and led to the accident.
-Were there design features that led to this, or did the human factor play a role?
Nuclear power is open and transparent, so we all know today how and why the accidents occurred. And based on the results of each such detailed analysis, measures are taken: errors in the design, if any, are eliminated, the regulatory framework and personnel requirements are revised. And I can assure you that all major accidents are mainly related to the human factor.
- Do third-generation reactors exclude these errors?
- Nothing can ever be completely excluded, in any area. In any process and technology, there is a possibility of an emergency, this applies to transport, and in general in our everyday life. In technology, this probability is calculated by formulas that are tested in practice, describing the operation of complex installations. In modern reactors, technical measures are taken, the so-called passive safety elements, when, without the participation of personnel, the reactor is transferred to a safe state in the event of any malfunctions. By the way, on the example of Fukushima, we saw how it works – the emergency systems worked normally, and the reactor itself was extinguished. But a day later, hydrogen exploded, which had accumulated in the building. But there was no nuclear accident there.
In modern generation 3 and 3+ stations, the probability of a severe accident is less than 10 to the minus seventh power of the event per year. This means that in 10 million years, only one accident can happen. The degree of safety of a nuclear power plant is much higher than the safety, for example, of air transport. You are tens of thousands of times more likely to get into an accident than something to happen at a nuclear power plant.
Nothing is absolutely safe. Now many say that RES are completely safe. But in reality, renewable energy sources also have a danger - these are fires, for example. Or just the blades of the generators come off. If we talk about waste, then there is still a big question about the burial of spent wind turbines or solar panels - what to do with this huge amount of difficult material? Here in the United States, for example, there are now used "wind turbines", and they cannot decide what to do with them.
- Still, there are no such terrible consequences as from nuclear power plants, from renewable energy sources.
- Nuclear power plants also have no special consequences for a long time. What we all saw in the example of Fukushima. In Chernobyl, which we all look back at, there was an open reactor. And on modern third-generation stations, there must also be a dome that does not allow decay products to come out.
- So, the possibility of radiation contamination is completely excluded?
- To say that only a not very smart person who does not understand anything about the basics of mathematics and physics can completely do it. At modern nuclear power plants, such a probability is minimized. If, for example, you blow up the reactor and destroy the dome at the same time - then yes, infection is possible. But in normal life, this is very unlikely.
You can simulate and imagine anything from military operations to a UFO invasion. But when we talk about the use of nuclear energy, we are talking about peaceful use. Now, against the background of hostilities in Ukraine, they began to talk about the danger in the event of war. But military operations in general lead to very serious consequences, where radiation exposure will be severe, but not the main factor.
. There are a lot of serious weapons, for example, thermobaric charges. Everyone is afraid that something may happen at the nuclear power plant. But there are other, no less dangerous industries. For example, chemical plants, which, if destroyed, will cause enormous harm, often exceeding the consequences of a nuclear accident.
- How will the personnel issue be resolved? Is there a sufficient number of specialists in Kazakhstan who will be able to work in this industry, to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power plants?
- Every year we have a replenishment of children who graduate from the relevant specialties in leading universities, in particular, in Russia - the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Tomsk Polytechnic University. These are the universities that trained personnel for the nuclear power industry of the Soviet Union. So far, these people are working in different places because there is no project. Therefore, when we say that there are no personnel, this is not so, there is no work.
There are also special training programs. That is, when we choose a model of the reactor, when we start construction, in parallel there is training of operating personnel. This is included in the technical specification of the contract. Personnel are trained specifically for the selected reactor, for its control system. For example, a specialist has a basic education in nuclear energy, but the personnel must be trained specifically for work on this reactor.
All this is included in the program for the construction of the station, so there are no problems with the training of personnel now, and there will not be in the future.