[en] Full text: The paper will review the basic drivers of energy supply and demand to form a first approximation of future trends. It will then focus on the discontinuities and shocks which have in the past made extrapolations of current trends such an unreliable guide to the future. By examining past discontinuities and shocks, it will seek to gain insight into when they are likely to occur in the future. It will argue - based on recent experience - for the urgent need for innovation in nuclear energy and will point to specific areas where innovation would be most beneficial. GDP is assessed to be the fundamental driver of energy demand, GDP itself being a function of population size, technology and what might be termed 'development capability'. With population growth slowing more rapidly than imagined even a few decades ago, maintaining high GDP growth will depend more on the second two factors. On balance GDP growth - and with it energy demand - is expected to continue the slowing trend of the past four decades. Even so, in the absence of evidence of saturation of energy demand, energy consumption is expected to continue to increase, with electricity and transportation energy increasing their shares and stationery fossil fuel end uses diminishing. Energy demand is also responsive to energy price, however, and it is price that has been the principal transmitter of past shocks. These shocks appear to have been primarily related to shifts in the underlying supply capacity of the fuel which is acting as the price setter and swing supplier. Thus price forms the feedback loop between demand and supply. This analysis of past discontinuities in the price-setting fuel suggests that a further shock is likely to be associated with the peaking of non-Middle Eastern oil production and of West European gas. This, combined with the underlying increase in energy demand and the expected gradual increase in the internalisation of external fossil fuel costs, is likely to result in a higher energy cost environment, which should benefit nuclear energy. The prospects for nuclear energy will be tempered, however, by policies governing the economics of electricity markets, the progress being made by competitor electricity sources, and the probable increased role of decentralised energy systems. While a fundamental re-evaluation of energy market reform is taking place, it is unlikely to lead to a return to the status quo ante and the bias to lower capital cost sources is likely to continue. Equally competitor electricity sources, including low- and zero-emission fossil fuel technologies, are making progress. Finally while decentralised energy supply is unlikely to totally displace grid systems, it will take an increased share. Hence, if nuclear energy is to play an expanding role in future, innovation needs to be focused on delivering: applicability to a broader range of market applications than at present (it will not be sufficient simply to offer big plants for base load grid supply); lower capital costs (being the lowest cost supplier - preferably with a shorter pay-back period than competitors - will remain the most reliable way to gain market share); demonstrably enhanced safety and weapons proliferation resistance for a sceptical public; and simplified approaches to waste management that will not compromise long-term assurance of negligible health or environmental effect. In particular, nuclear energy must be able to respond to a meaningful portion of the developing world's energy needs or it will be relegated to be a mere sideshow of energy history. (author)

[en] Recommendations of the U.S. National Energy Policy Report, written by the National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) Group in May 2001, related to advanced nuclear technologies included: (1) to reexamine the U.S. policies to allow for research, development, and deployment of fuel conditioning methods (such as pyroprocessing) that reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance, and (2) to consider technologies to develop reprocessing and fuel treatments that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste-intensive, and more proliferation-resistant. In both the Advanced Fuel Cycle (AFC) and the Generation IV Nuclear Systems programs of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), advanced fuel cycles based on pyrometallurgical processes are under consideration. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has been developing a pyrometallurgical process for fast reactor fuels. Such a process is currently being used at the Fuel Conditioning Facility (FCF) at ANL in Idaho for the Spent Fuel Treatment Program to process fuel and blanket assemblies from the EBR-II reactor and to generate waste forms suitable for burial in a geologic repository. Under the joint sponsorship of the Office of Nonproliferation Policy of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology of DOE, ANL and LANL have initiated a project on the integration of safeguards in the design of an advanced pyroprocessing facility. The goal of the project is to develop a demonstrably effective safeguards system for an advanced fuel processing via targeted process and facility modifications and the utilization of modern safeguards techniques. This requires the employment of an integrated design approach that contends with safeguards issues directly during the design stage. The effect of this approach on the the proliferation resistance of the facility will be assessed. In the current phase of the project, the reference pyroprocess facility and preferred safeguards approach are identified, along with technologies required in the overall approach. Future activities are being planned for the demonstration or testing of the key technologies involved. A reference facility layout has been developed and mass flows and compositions have been established on the basis of a pyroprocess facility used in an advanced fast-spectrum reactor fuel cycle using metal fuel. Equilibrium compositions of spent fuel for multiple recycling in a sodium-cooled fast reactor operating with a conversion ratio of about 0.7 have been estimated for various fissile material makeup compositions. Several safeguards approaches have been proposed and evaluated for the reference facility. The impact of the safeguards approaches on the facility design and operational constraints has been assessed. Conversely, the specific characteristics of the facility and the process parameters have been evaluated for their potential use, complementing or enhancing safeguards measures such as containment surveillance. Detection of potential misuse of the facility will require monitoring of key process parameters that have been identified. On the basis of the assessment of the safeguards options, a preferred approach has been selected and the facility design has been adapted to facilitate safeguards activities such as material balance verification, the implementation of destructive (DA) and non-destructive analyses (NDA), and the implementation of the penetration monitoring. The effectiveness of the safeguards approaches studied relies on issues such as the ability to accurately determine the mass of the Pu input to the process and the composition of the salt in the electrorefiner. The presence of high Curium content for some of the fissile material feed options presents unique challenges for potential NDA measurements. These difficulties and others have been identified. There are plans for testing solutions to these issues and selected key safeguards technologies in the FCF. Future plans also include an evaluation of the overall proliferation resistance of the resulting integral facility design using advanced assessment methods currently being developed in a separate initiative with the Generation IV International Forum. The potential benefits of the integrated design approach will thus be assessed

[en] Full text: Egypt has been considering for a number of years the introduction of nuclear energy to meet the combined challenge of increasing electricity and water demand on one hand and the limited primary energy and water resources on the other hand. In this regard, Nuclear Power Plants Authority (NPPA) was established in 1976 within the Ministry Of Electricity and Energy (MOEE) to carry out the Egyptian Nuclear Power Plants Program for electricity generation and seawater desalination. The current framework of NPPA activities aim at: 1. Carry out a number of integrated studies to provide the decision makers with detailed information regarding the viability of nuclear power and the available options. 2. Keep a state of readiness for efficient execution of the nuclear power program whenever the decision is taken. 3. Complete the necessary infrastructure of NPP site at El-Dabaa. 4. Investigate the prospects of using nuclear energy for simultaneous production of electricity and potable water. The main objective of NPPA activities is the integral planning for the construction of first nuclear power and desalination plant around the year 2012. The scope of this activities covers site development, perform the necessary technical and economic feasibility studies, survey and analysis the most recent world wide technologies relevant to innovative reactors and fuel cycles, preparation for bid document, development of the QA program, manpower development, and R and D in coupling aspects of desalination and nuclear technologies. In this Regard, NPPA has been carrying out a number national and international activities. The intent of this paper is to present an overview of the Egyptian activities in the field of cogeneration of electricity and potable water by nuclear energy, including innovative reactor technologies. (author)

[en] Full text: An innovative water-cooled reactor concept named Reduced-Moderation Water Reactor (RMWR) is under development by JAERI in cooperation with some Japanese utilities and vendors. The reactor aims at achievement of a high conversion ratio more than 1.0 with plutonium (Pu) mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, based on the well-experienced water-cooled reactor technology. Such a high conversion ratio can be attained by reducing the moderation of neutrons, i.e. reducing the water fraction in the core, and is favorable to realize long-term energy supply by effective utilization of the uranium resources, multiple recycling of Pu, or high burn-up / long operation cycle achievement. The reduced neutron moderation with the water results in a similar neutron spectrum to that in a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor (FBR) even in a water-cooled reactor core. Another important design target for the RMWR is to achieve the negative void reactivity coefficient. This is one of the important characteristics of the currently operated light water reactors, especially from the safety point of view. However, the negative void reactivity coefficient and the high conversion ratio are in the trade-off relation in the reactor design and this gives difficulty to be overcome in the design of the RMWR. Up to the present, we have succeeded in proposing several types of basic design concepts satisfying both the main design targets under both the boiling water reactor (BWR) type concept and the pressurized water reactor (PWR) type one. The common design characteristics are the tight-lattice fuel rod configuration and the short core. The former is to attain the high conversion ratio and the latter is for the negative void reactivity coefficient. Additionally, the axial, i.e. upper, lower or internal, or the radial blankets made of the depleted UO₂ are also introduced by necessity for both purposes mentioned above. Since the RMWR is intended to be operated in the fuel cycle with the multiple recycling of Pu, the core performances during the multiple recycling under the advanced fuel reprocessing schemes have also been investigated. In advanced fuel reprocessing schemes, such as the advanced PUREX processes and the dry reprocessing, the lower decontamination factors (DFs) than the current PUREX process with very high DFs are proposed, and hence, some fission products (FPs) and minor actinides (MAs) are contained in the fresh fuel to some extent. As they are expected to have negative effects on the core performances, the effects should be evaluated considering them as the components of the fresh fuel under the Pu recycling situation. The effects of FPs and MAs have been investigated under several conditions. From the investigation, although the effects of FPs are not evaluated to be serious under the average DFs of about 10, MAs are evaluated to have significant effects on the core performances under the extreme conditions with DFs of 1. As a result of these investigation, it has been confirmed that the high conversion ratio more than 1.0 and the negative void reactivity coefficients are still able to be achieved by slightly adjusting the basic core design, even under the multiple recycling through the advanced fuel reprocessing schemes with the lower DFs. In order to reduce the water fraction in the core, the tight-lattice fuel rod configuration is adopted in the RMWR core design as mentioned above. By this reason the width between fuel rods should be as small as about 1 mm. This results in, however, an important issue from the heat removal point of view. For the confirmation of the core heat removal, the thermal hydraulic analyses and experiments have also been performed and indicated the feasibility of the present design. Safety analyses for the major abnormal transients and accidents have shown its enough safety margin. Furthermore, more detailed investigation, such as control rod operation planning, start-up sequence planning and so forth, has been performed. (author)

[en] Full text: It is clear, from a global perspective that, as the world's population growth and industrialization continues there will indeed be a scarcity of fresh water resources. By 2025, 1,8 billion people will live in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity. Of all the globe's water, 97 percent is salt water from the oceans. The use of nuclear energy for electricity and potable water production is an attractive, technically feasible and safe alternative to fossil energy options. The main reasons are its higher load factors, no emission of greenhouse gases and no environmental pollution. Argentina has a desalination project, with support of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a Coordinated Research Project (CRP): Economic Research on, and Assessment of, Selected Nuclear Desalination Projects and Case Studies in Argentina and Latin America. This project has as objective to acquire capability to evaluate the feasibility of certain nuclear desalination options as well as possible sites in Argentina, or in other areas of Latin America. On the other hand, Argentina is developing a small nuclear power plant too, the CAREM nuclear power plant, which might be used as an energy source for water desalination. This nuclear power plant has an indirect cycle reactor with some distinctive and characteristic features that greatly simplify the design, and also contributes to a higher safety level. The integrated primary cooling system, primary cooling by natural circulation, self-pressurized primary system and safety systems relying on passive features are some of the relevant design characteristics of the plant. CAREM safety systems must guarantee no need of active actions to mitigate the accidents during a long period. In Argentine desalination project, the CAREM nuclear power plant will be adopted as the energy source. A combined cycle gas turbine power plant will be used with comparative purposes. This paper shows the studies carried out up to now in this desalination project. In order to identify potential sites for desalination plants in Argentina, or in the other areas of Latin America, these regions will be studied to detect possible needs of fresh water, as well as to collect the necessary data of the pre-selected sites. Scarcity of fresh water in Argentina was analyzed. From this study the central coast of Argentine Patagonia was selected and it was carried out a site survey to identify the places with higher potential in that area. San Antonio Oeste, Puerto Madryn, Comodoro Rivadavia and Puerto Deseado are the places selected. A screening was made about the available information to select the candidate site. This final site selected was Puerto Deseado. Relevant parameters for the candidate site, Puerto Deseado, have been collected. Regarding the energy supply, Puerto Deseado is connected to the Patagonic Interconnected System with an electric line of 132 kW from Pico Truncado to Puerto Deseado. This city is situated in the end of this line. In order to increase the reliability of supply, it is very important that the city could have a power plant. In Latin America was performed a study for the regions detection. From this study the Dry-Pacific hydrographic system was selected. The selected regions, in Argentina and in the rest of Latin America, they have shortage of fresh water and energy. These regions have seawater and important potential of their population's growth and industrial activity. In summary, these regions are interesting to carry out an integral evaluation for to install in them a nuclear desalination plant. In addition, main water desalination technologies have been studied. The study was focused on the advantages and disadvantages of each seawater or brackish water desalination technology, and the distinctive characteristics of each of them, that make them better adapted to different uses and site conditions. An analysis of previous experience in its use in the world and the main economical factors was be made, too. The summary of these technologies study, the economical collected dates, for different world's desalination plants, and the main plant's operating requirements are included. According with the particular characteristics of Puerto Deseado, world tendencies and technological advances of the desalination processes, and some economic data RO technology, was considered as the most convenient for this selected site. The CAREM nuclear power plant was also considered an attractive, technically feasible and safe alternative for electricity and potable water production according to the Puerto Deseado site characteristics and the inherent advantages of the nuclear power plants, such as the higher load factors and the environmental considerations. (author)

[en] Full text: The fixed bed nuclear reactor (FBNR) is essentially a pressurized light water reactor (PWR) having spherical fuel elements constituting a suspended reactor core at its lowest bed porosity. The core is movable thus under any adverse condition, the fuel elements can leave the reactor core naturally through the force of gravity and fall into the passively cooled fuel chamber or leave the reactor all together entering the spent fuel pool. It is a small and modular reactor being simple in design. Its spent fuel is in such a convenient form and size that may be utilized directly as the source for irradiation and applications in agriculture and industry. This feature results in a positive impact on waste management and environmental protection. The principle features of the proposed reactor are that the concept is polyvalent, simple in design, may operate either as fixed or fluidized bed, have the core suspended contributing to inherent safety, passive cooling features of the reactor. The reactor is modular and has integrated primary system utilizing either water, supercritical steam or helium gas as its coolant. Some of the advantages of the proposed reactor are being modular, low environmental impact, exclusion of severe accidents, short construction period, flexible adaptation to demand, excellent load following characteristics, and competitive economics. The characteristics of the Fluidized Bed Nuclear Reactor (FBNR) concept may be analyzed under the light of the requirements set for the IV generation nuclear reactors. It is shown that FBNR meet the goals of (1) Providing sustainable energy generation that meets clean air objectives and promotes long-term availability of systems and effective fuel utilization for worldwide energy production, (2) Minimize and manage their nuclear waste and notably reduce the long term stewardship burden in the future, thereby improving protection for the public health and the environment, (3) Excel in safety and reliability, (4) Have a very low likelihood and degree of reactor core damage. (5) Eliminate the need for offsite emergency response, (6) Have a clear life-cycle cost advantage over other energy sources, (7) Have a level of financial risk comparable to other energy projects. (author)

[en] The proposed advanced Reactivity Control Method (RCM) is designated for control of the power field of nuclear reactor during its normal operation, start-up and normal and emergency shutdown by the uniform change of distribution of solid neutron-absorbing material concentration in the reactor core using the new spiral Elastic Reactivity Control Device (ERCD). The ERCD is the elastic absorber element implemented in form of cylindrical spiral with the variable, naturally closed, coil gap. Increase or reduction of coil gap is made by pulling or releasing the elastic spiral with the actuator drive. At each position of ERCD element the elastic properties of spiral ensure the uniform distribution of absorber material in the reactor core. Once the reactor emergency protection is triggered, the ERCD is 'inserted' in the reactor core from any of its positions by the accumulated power of elastic deformation of spiral. In this case ERCD coil gap L in the reactor core rapidly decreases, which gives fast and uniform increase of solid neutron-absorbing material concentration in the reactor core. The transparency of ERCD for thermal neutrons changes from 'gray' to 'black'. The ERCD emergency insertion time is mainly defined by the speed of elastic deformation spread along the spiral body. Generally, it is the combination of the gravity force and elastic deformation force, that ensures the 'insertion' of ERCD (decrease of coil gap) in the reactor core in case of other equipment failure (e.g., loss of power supply of actuator drive). Benefits of ERCD implementation are as follows: Flattening of power field gives higher uniformity of power distribution in the reactor core, which can be achieved even in the very beginning of the reactor campaign; Better utilization of fuel provided by higher degree of burnout; High performance emergency shutdown - fast introduction of negative reactivity into the reactor core without the axial distortion of power field by rapid and uniform change of absorber concentration in the reactor core; High efficiency of reactivity control is ensured by ERCD in the whole range of variation of absorber coil gap (concentration), compared to the low efficiency of the conventional control rod in the positions near to the edge of reactor core with low neutron flux; High reliability of ERCD and operational availability due to the inherent ability of spiral absorber movement in damaged/sagged CPS tubular guides or channels; Dynamic properties of ERCD are substantially better than of conventional control rods. The areas of application of advanced Reactor Control Method and ERCD are as follows: Nuclear reactors of new design; Modernization of CPS at the existing nuclear reactors. The implementation of ERCD in the existing PWR designs is one of the possible solutions that bring the proven technology and existing reactor core design to the next level of economic efficiency and increased passive safety. Replacement of conventional control rods by ERCD solutions gives more precise reactivity control solution than rods. The axial uniformity of absorber ensured by each ERCD in each moment of time provides the ideal conditions for power field control in the whole reactor core. The required number of ERCD to replace conventional control rods is determined specifically for each design. Key points of ERCD implementation in the Existing PWR Designs are: Basic design of FA remains without changes. Control Rods Drive Mechanism is the same and used for the ERCD placed in the existing control rod guides; ERCD groups are used for power control and compensation of reactivity effects; Power control - is implemented by ERCD groups, ensuring high grade uniformity of power distribution during the reactor start-up and the whole campaign. All transients are performed without distortion of power field; Fuel burnup - is compensated by increase of coil gap in ERCD groups. All other Control Rod groups (if remain in the specific design) are used for compensation of excess reactivity and used only in 2 positions: (1) fully withdrawn or (2) fully inserted (replace the boron control used for this purpose in the original design). During the campaign the CR groups are being withdrawn in stages, as necessary, to keep the ERCD reactivity controls in the required range. All ERCD and Control Rod groups are used for implementation of Emergency Shutdown. Liquid Poison (Boron) system is no longer required for reactivity control (can be left for safety reasons as a diverse shutdown system). Results of ERCD implementation: Improved uniformity of power distribution in the reactor core provides conditions for better fuel utilization; New safety margins are achievable due to the absence of power field distortion during transients; Xenon oscillations are avoided by the method of absorber concentration control; Boron-free control concept improves plant economy; Minimum scope of modifications to the in existing PWR design. In channel type reactors the reactivity control is performed by Control Rods operating in separate CPS channels that penetrate through the reactor core. Such channels can be cooled by CPS coolant flow. If the Liquid Poison is not used during the normal reactor operation, all reactivity control demands are fulfilled by Control Rods. They are operated individually to reach the necessary precision in reactivity control and power distribution in the reactor core. With the use of ERCD and conventional control rod located in the same CPS channel, the dual-purpose combined function channel can be implemented. In the dual-purpose channel, various combinations of ERCDs and control rods can be implemented, e.g., outer ERCD with inner control rod. The CPS modernization with full or partial replacement of existing control rods to the ERCD will yield in two independent (diverse) reactor shutdown systems

[en] Full text: Over the past 30 years, U.S. nuclear power production has steadily increased from 83.5 billion kilowatt hours per year in 1973, to almost 800 billion kilowatt hours in 2002. The new plants that came on-line in the 1980s accounted for a significant portion of that increase. Since the last plant came on-line in 1996, the increase in nuclear power production has come primarily from improved plant capacity factors. This has been accomplished through improved plant operating performance, reduced refueling outage durations and power up-rates. U.S. capacity factors increased from 57.6 percent in 1980, to 90.7 percent in 2001. Much of this improvement can be attributed to shorter refueling outages. The average refueling duration in 1990 was 105 days. In 2001, refueling outage duration had been reduced to an average of 37 days. Another factor that influenced improved capacity factors was better plant operating performance. Unplanned capability loss factors dropped from 11.6 percent in 1980 to 1.6 percent in 2001. Shorter outages and fewer forced outages have both contributed to continued increase in U.S. nuclear power production. Top quartile capacity factor performance, on a three-year average basis, improved by almost 3 percent from 1997 to 2001. In contrast, the fourth quartile performance went from 56.4 percent to 82.1 percent, an improvement of more than 45 percent for the same period. The difference among top quartile performances, in the 1997 to 1999 timeframe, was almost 37 percent. In the period 1999 to 2001, the difference between the first and fourth quartiles had decreased to 13.7 percent. This represents a 164 percent improvement in the lowest quartile performance. During the 1980s, production costs at U.S. nuclear power plants continued to rise. These increases were primarily due to staffing and upward pressures on labor costs. Beginning in 1987, production costs, on cents per kilowatt-hour basis, began to decline. This decline was due to a combination of increased generation, as well as a decrease in production costs. Over the last 15 years, great strides have been made in reducing and controlling plant operating costs, especially labor costs. Numerous U.S. nuclear plants have gone through downsizing efforts and hiring freezes. As a result, the U.S. has seen a steady decline in nuclear production costs on a cents per kilowatt-hour basis. Top quartile production cost performance has improved in much the same way as capacity factor performance. In fact, the improvement in capacity factors has led the way for reducing production cost on a cents per kilowatt-hour basis. The difference between first and fourth quartile performance for the three-year average from 1997 to 1999 was 2.42 cents per kilowatt-hour. The same comparison from 1999 to 2001 shows a difference of only 0.68 cents, an improvement of more than 250 percent. While top quartile three-year average performance has improved by less than 1 percent, fourth quartile performance has improved by 90 percent for the years from 1997 to 2001. While we have continued to see steady improvement in the economics of U.S. nuclear power over the past decade, our ability to sustain that level of improvement will be challenged in the future. Several factors have and will continue to place upward pressure on U.S. nuclear production costs. These factors include increases in security, materials integrity issues, nuclear property insurance and employee benefit costs. Our first challenge stems from the increased emphasis on nuclear power plant security in the U.S. Since 2001, more than 2,000 additional security positions have been added to U.S. nuclear plant security forces bringing the total to 7,000 at 67 plant sites. This represents a 35 percent increase in security staffing over 2001 levels. Additional U.S. security-related spending, a 44 percent increase over 2001, is estimated at $370 million for manpower and security-related capital improvements. Materials integrity issues also have become a top priority for the U.S. nuclear industry. Nozzle cracking, boric acid leakage and corrosion have led to increased plant inspections and regulatory oversight. This also has resulted in an increased emphasis on plant safety cultures. The industry has developed an integrated approach to deal with these issues with the primary emphasis on early detection of material degradation. Other solutions will require costly equipment removal and replacement. An increase in the risk associated with U.S. nuclear power plants also has led to a substantial increase in nuclear property insurance premiums. In the recent past, most nuclear power plants received substantial nuclear insurance refunds and reduced premiums. These refunds were based on sustained accident-free nuclear operations and a low level of perceived risk. After the events in September 2001, the perceived risk at U.S. nuclear power plants escalated. The result - increased property insurance premiums and substantially reduced refunds. Labor costs at U.S. nuclear power plants continue to account for approximately 73 percent of our total operating costs. Employee-related benefits, such as health care and pensions, have increased dramatically over the past several years. Much of our economic success in the future will depend on our ability to manage our labor costs. In the future, the U.S. nuclear power industry will be faced with continued upward cost pressures. Nuclear plant operators will come under increased pressure to manage safety margins as well as managing the bottom-line. As a result, production cost on a cents per kilowatt-hour basis could level off or begin to climb. Future economic survival will depend on the industry's ability to create innovative solutions for controlling costs through process improvements and un-tapping increased generation potential. (author)

[en] Full text: There are no universal views on nuclear power, nor universal expectations about its future progresses. Therefore, this paper presents only one view, mostly based on European experience. There are misconceptions and misrepresentations about the present status of nuclear technology : a majority of people believe that nuclear power contributes significantly to global warming and climate change, and many are convinced that radioactivity has insidious and mysterious ways to percolate through matter and contaminate the environment. For many people, the longer the 'life' of a radioactive element, the more dangerous it must be (without any extrapolation to the eternal life of stable elements). It is very hard to convey the notion that the health effects of radiations depend only from dose and dose rate, irrespective of whether it is 'natural' or 'artificial' radiation. In that context, the perceived risks associated with radioactive wastes management are generally overblown. It would therefore appear that the first expectation from innovative reactors is the guarantee of no significant release of radioactivity in the environment under any circumstances. 'No severe accident', 'no meltdown' are often the formulations used, but the actual demand is: 'no radioactivity'. The second expectation concerns almost unanimously the radioactive wastes : less waste, less long-lived wastes, and no waste at all if possible. The Frenchman in the street does not know what is a radioactive waste, has no idea that there are different categories of wastes with different management practices, and is convinced that this constitutes an important problem without solution (it certainly appears that the Finn and the Swede have a better knowledge). This request for 'no waste' has been exacerbated by some exaggerated claims by the proponents of such or such reactor design. Expectations about non-proliferation vary vastly from place to place: in some countries it is high in the public agenda, in other countries, it is a non-issue. Making a better use of the mineral resources is a potent motivation for innovation among the nuclear technologists, but it is no longer and not yet a public concern. But there are two last and rather overwhelming expectations which put the other in perspective : 'I expect power when I flip my switch', and 'Do not increase my electricity bill'. (author)

[en] Full text: The United States and Russia are the countries with nuclear programs, which have for a long time served as an example in nuclear technology development. The 'Atoms for Peace' initiative put forward by President Eisenhower in 1953, and the first nuclear power plant created by Kurchatov in 1954, have both marked the beginning of the first nuclear era. The last decade witnessed many promising examples - described in the paper - of joint actions aimed at developing cooperation in the sphere of innovative reactors and fuel cycles, which laid a quite solid basis for a new step in the U.S./Russian nuclear cooperation, when the political will added to the historical experience. The Russian President's initiative on energy supply for the sustainable development of mankind, put forward in 2000 at the Millennium Summit, was based on the obvious end of stagnation in the Russia's nuclear power industry, and significantly influenced the nuclear power process. The U.S. national energy policy announced a year ago is based on similar ideas. This new energy policy recognizes nuclear energy to be a factor of economic development stability and an environmentally acceptable energy option. The obvious resemblance between the two Presidents' positions was realized in formal decisions at their meeting in May 2002, when the both parties announced their intention 'to collaborate in research and development of new, more environmentally safe nuclear power technologies'. Establishment of joint expert groups, including the group intended 'to prepare recommendations on the joint efforts in innovative nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technology R and D', was the first step in realizing this intention. The group's Russia/U.S. collaboration report identified the perspective directions of such collaboration in the field of innovative reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technologies. An action plan was also announced, which includes, as the next objective, harmonization of activities within the frameworks of 'Generation-IV' International Forum and INPRO. The paper considers several bilateral initiatives on non-governmental level (Sandia - Kurchatov Institute, leading experts' meeting, etc.) aimed at developing cooperation between the two countries. It also considers the prospects of overcoming the difficulties of the transition period in the U.S./Russian nuclear power technology collaboration. It shows that the promising perspectives of the U.S./Russian collaboration continue to be supported with practical activities on the national laboratory level. Bilateral cooperation between the two nuclear power founders may become a positive factor of the world nuclear development on the long term. (author)