Sky Rockets Expected for the 4th Anniversary of the Ukraine War

That is good news for war tools producers including those of the U.S.A. and various transportation of weapons for causing human fatalities businesses. There have been more than 400,000 casualties so far, and that is big business for funeral homes and organ sales, yet modest in comparison to the energy business. Europeans feel increasingly more secure as the war continues and are optimistic about their long lange security prospects if they can roll back Russia through combat the next few years to the boundaries inherited from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States feels better too about Europe becoming more militarily active and the new businesses in drone war developments encouraged through extensive use of drones in actual field deployments.

As Europe draws closer unto the United States as it become a military peer more like it was before the Second World War, U.S, leadership feels comfortable driving half of the world to make a trading choice between RUssia, China, India, Brazil etc and the United States. Forcing a two-part world with Europe standing with the U.S. until the Ukraine war ends and Europe reverts to full Chinese trade and eventually Russia too for its plentiful raw natural resources after the war is wrapped up has encouraged U.S. leaders to do what it can with weapons, loans, cash and satellite intelligence including Starlink to guide drone attacks on Russia accurately for a few more years. 

The Ukraine war is a way to tighten the slack on global energy supplies- there is a surfeit of excess oil and gas production and taking Russia, Iran and Venezuela out of the global competition might increase the value per barrel of gas by $5 more or less. Saudi Arabia hasn’t used much fracking on its vast reserves that weren’t close to depletion, yet fracking will renew their supplies should they choose to continue using that fossil fuel source for revenue indefinitely. American oil companies will not experience such a rapid drop in global oil prices as that Ukraine war continues.

China is not harmed as much by the cost of global oil supplies as one might guess. They receive discounted oil from Russia and work continues on building more direct pipelines to China from Siberia for gas. China and Russia already have an ESPO oil pipeline running direct and a second gas pipeline opened in 2019. Russia’s pivot east will continue so long as the Ukraine war continues.

Though the 20^th round of sanctions on Russia was just rejected by the EU because of Hungary and the Check Republics displeasure with Ukraine over President Zelenskyy’s action to ban Russia oil sales traveling through a pipeline from Russia to Europe, sanctions on Russia continue to force Russia to turn toward the Chinese economy for many supplies. U.S. and European sanctions on China cannot remotely equal those on Russia, for simply conducting business with Russia. China is far too important as a producer and consumer of products in trade with the west to sever. So sanctions on Russia primarily benefit China. An example is ion the field of nuclear power plant generator technology where China buys from Russia rather than the west. There are significant western sanctions on China for military owned companies and items that comprise security risks to the west, yet those are are mostly those that Russia excels at creating and manufacturing. Russia is ahead of the United States for example in the development of nuclear power plants that are safe to operate, while the Ukraine is haggling and protracting the war to take control of the Soviet era Zap Nuclear power plant.

I asked Gemini to provide information on Russian nuclear power and the energy relationship with China.

Gary-Can’t Russia replace the Zap nuclear power plant with a better, newer nuke energy facility and just trade the old Zapper to Ukraine for Donbas?

While the U.S. is developing cutting-edge nuclear technologies, a “trade” is legally and geopolitically impossible due to strict sanctions and the competitive nature of the global nuclear market. 

1. New U.S. Technologies

The U.S. is currently leading a “nuclear renaissance” with several advanced designs that are more efficient and safer than the older Soviet-style reactors at Zaporizhzhia: 

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Companies like NuScale Power and GE Hitachi (BWRX-300) are building reactors that are smaller, cheaper, and “walk-away safe,” meaning they can shut down without human intervention in an emergency.
• Advanced Generation IV Reactors: TerraPower (backed by Bill Gates) is developing the Natrium reactor, which uses liquid sodium for cooling and includes a “molten salt battery” to store energy for peak demand.
• Microreactors: Ultra-small units (like those from X-energy) are designed for remote locations or military bases, providing portable and resilient power. 

2. The Sanctions Barrier

Even if Russia wanted this technology, the U.S. has imposed an almost total ban on exporting high-tech goods to Russia: 

• Export Restrictions: Since the 2022 invasion, the U.S. has enforced a “policy of denial” for most technology exports to Russia. Nuclear energy is specifically guarded to prevent any “dual-use” benefits to Russia’s military or nuclear weapons program.
• Decoupling Efforts: New laws, such as the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act (2024), aim to completely sever nuclear ties between the two nations by 2028. 

3. Russia is a Competitor, Not a Customer 

Russia doesn’t “need” American tech in the way a typical customer might. Through its state company Rosatom, Russia is actually the world’s leading exporter of nuclear reactors and fuel. 

• Global Rivalry: The U.S., Russia, and China are currently battling for dominance in the international SMR market.
• Incompatibility: The Zaporizhzhia plant uses Soviet-designed VVER reactors. American experts have noted that U.S. operators have no experience running this specific class of technology, making any immediate handover or technical “swap” a massive safety risk. 

In short, while the technology exists, the U.S. is currently using it to shield allies from Russian influence rather than as a bargaining chip for territorial trades. 

Gary–Does Russia produce any of the new American style nuclear power generators itself- that is does it have new designs comparable to the American

Gemini-Actually, Russia is not just “comparable” to the U.S. in these new technologies—in several key areas of advanced nuclear energy, they are currently the world leader in deployment. While the U.S. has many promising designs, Russia (through its state company Rosatom) already has several of these Generation IV and SMR (Small Modular Reactor) technologies in actual operation. 

Here is how Russia’s new tech stacks up against the latest American designs:

1. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 

• Russia’s Lead: Russia operates the world’s first and only commercial floating nuclear power plant, the  Akademik Lomonosov , which uses two KLT-40S reactors to power remote Arctic regions.
• American Equivalent: Companies like NuScale Power and GE Hitachi (BWRX-300) have designs for land-based SMRs, but none are in commercial operation yet. NuScale’s first major U.S. project was recently canceled due to rising costs.
• Russia’s Next Gen: Russia is now building land-based SMRs using the RITM-200N design (adapted from their nuclear icebreakers), with the first unit in Yakutia scheduled for 2028. 

2. Generation IV “Fast” Reactors

• Russia’s Lead: Russia is the only country currently operating commercial-scale “fast neutron” reactors (BN-600 and BN-800). These are considered Generation IV because they can “burn” nuclear waste as fuel and are much more efficient.
• The “Breakthrough” Project: Russia is currently constructing the BREST-OD-300, a world-first lead-cooled fast reactor that uses a “closed fuel cycle,” meaning it essentially recycles its own fuel indefinitely.
• American Equivalent: TerraPower (Bill Gates’ company) is building the Natrium reactor in Wyoming. Like the Russian BN series, it is a sodium-cooled fast reactor, but it isn’t expected to be operational until at least 2030. 

3. Fuel Dominance (HALEU)

A major hurdle for the new American SMRs is that they require a special type of highly enriched fuel called HALEU. 

• The Problem: Currently, Russia is the only commercial supplier of HALEU in the world.
• The Race: The U.S. is racing to build its own enrichment facilities to break this dependence, as Russia’s monopoly on the fuel gives them a massive advantage in selling their reactors to other countries. 

In summary: Russia doesn’t need to “replace” the older Zaporizhzhia tech with American tech because they are already building and exporting their own next-generation versions. Their challenge isn’t a lack of technology, but rather the international sanctions that make it difficult for them to find new customers outside of their current allies.

Russia is currently the global leader in sodium-cooled nuclear technology. While other countries (including the U.S., France, and Japan) have built experimental versions in the past, Russia is the only country currently operating them on a commercial scale. 

Russia’s primary sodium-cooled operations are located at the 

Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Plant

 in the Urals: 

1. Active Sodium-Cooled Reactors 

• BN-600 (Unit 3): Operating since 1980, this is the world’s longest-running commercial fast reactor. It recently received a life extension to keep it running until 2040.
• BN-800 (Unit 4): This is a larger, more advanced version that entered commercial operation in 2016. It is famous in the nuclear world because it successfully runs on MOX fuel (a mix of uranium and plutonium), which allows it to “burn” nuclear waste from other plants. 

2. The Future: BN-1200M

Russia is currently preparing to build the BN-1200M, which will be the world’s most powerful sodium-cooled fast reactor. 

• Status: As of July 2025, the project has entered the preparatory phase for construction.
• Goal: First concrete is scheduled to be poured in June 2027, with the reactor expected to start power production by 2031–2034. 

Why Sodium Instead of Water?

• Higher Efficiency: Sodium stays liquid at much higher temperatures than water, allowing the plant to produce more electricity from the same amount of heat.
• Waste Recycling: These “fast” reactors can use spent fuel from traditional plants (like Zaporizhzhia), helping to “close the fuel cycle” and reduce long-term nuclear waste.
• Safety: Sodium-cooled reactors operate at near-atmospheric pressure, meaning there is no risk of a high-pressure steam explosion like the one seen at Chernobyl. 

The Downside: The main challenge is that liquid sodium catches fire if it touches air or water, requiring extremely complex (and expensive) plumbing to keep it contained

Comparing the safety of Russia’s sodium-cooled reactors (like the BN-800) to the water-cooled reactors at 

Zaporizhzhia

 (VVER-1000) reveals a trade-off between “inherent physics” and “chemical volatility.” 

1. Safety Track Record

• VVER-1000 (Zaporizhzhia): These are the “workhorses” of the Russian/Ukrainian nuclear fleet. They have a strong safety record when properly maintained, featuring multiple redundant cooling systems and robust containment domes designed to withstand a plane crash. However, they rely on active systems (pumps and power) to prevent a meltdown, which is why the current war-related power outages are so dangerous.
• BN-Series (Sodium-Cooled): Russia’s sodium reactors at Beloyarsk have operated for decades with relatively few major issues. The BN-600 has run since 1980 with a solid industrial reliability record, though it has experienced minor non-nuclear turbine fires. 

2. Key Safety Differences

Feature	VVER-1000 (Zaporizhzhia)	BN-800 (Sodium-Cooled)
Pressure	High Pressure: Water must be highly pressurized to stay liquid. A pipe break can lead to a rapid loss of coolant (LOCA).	Low Pressure: Operates at near-atmospheric pressure. A pipe leak is just a leak, not a high-pressure “explosion” event.
Cooling	Active: Requires constant pumping of water. If power fails (station blackout), the core can overheat within hours.	Passive: Liquid sodium has massive “thermal inertia” and can cool the core naturally via air convection if pumps fail.
Major Risk	Steam/Hydrogen Explosion: High-pressure steam or hydrogen buildup (like Fukushima) is the primary catastrophic risk.	Sodium Fire: Sodium burns intensely if it contacts air or water. This requires complex, multi-layered plumbing to prevent leaks.

3. Why the BN-800 is “Inherently Safer”

The BN-800 is considered a Generation IV reactor because it is designed to be “self-controlling”: 

• Natural Shutdown: If the core gets too hot, the physical materials expand in a way that naturally slows down the nuclear reaction without any computer or human intervention.
• Waste Burning: Unlike the Zaporizhzhia reactors, which produce long-lived waste, the BN-800 can reprocess and “burn” plutonium and other waste products as fuel, reducing the overall radioactive footprint. 

The Verdict: While the VVER-1000 at Zaporizhzhia is a proven and safe design for peacetime, it is vulnerable in a war zone because it needs external power to stay safe. The BN-800 is technically more advanced and resilient to power losses, but its use of highly reactive liquid sodium makes it more expensive and complex to build and operate. “

China and Russia Cooperation in Nuclear Tech Development

Gemini-China is actively deepening its nuclear energy partnership with Russia, rather than relying on new U.S. technology. Russia is currently helping China build multiple new reactors and supplying advanced fuel technology, aligning with Beijing’s goal to surpass the U.S. in nuclear capacity. China is focusing on domestic development and Russian cooperation, making it a key competitor to US tech. 

 E&E News by POLITICO +2

• Growing Russia-China Nuclear Partnership: Russia has already helped build four reactors in China and is currently building four more, with plans to provide a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
• Focus on Domestic Tech/Independence: China is rapidly building its own nuclear capacity, often with its own technology or adapted French/U.S. designs, making it less reliant on purchasing new U.S. technology.
• Competing Models: While the U.S. focuses on developing new technology to compete, China and Russia are prioritizing rapid deployment, with Russia offering financing and fuel support that aids China in surpassing Western capacity.
• Geopolitical Strategy: The partnership strengthens both nations’ positions in the global nuclear energy market, with China acting as a competitor to the US rather than a client.