European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Russia launches € 43 billion nuclear power program

by Starvid
Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 03:34:57 PM EST

Russia has formally adopted a 43-billion-euro (EUR) (54 billion US dollars) two-stage nuclear energy development programme that aims to increase nuclear's share of electricity generated in the country from 15.6% to 18.6% over the next nine years.

I can't imagine a better way to spend those oil dollars.

A second dawn for nuclear power.

This 3,2 % increase is only the beginning. As reactor construction kicks in that number will increase fast as 3,2 % of Russian power consumption equals only 4 VVER-1000 reactors. We are probably looking at twenty-something reactors in the medium term.

Russia's minister of finance Alexei Kudrin called the programme the beginning of "a renaissance" for the Russian nuclear industry. He said the ministry totally supports the programme, including its budget.
The programme's two stages will run from 2007 to 2010 and 2011 to 2015. The EUR 43 billion budget consists of the equivalent of EUR 20 billion from the federal budget and EUR 23 billion from nuclear industry funds.
The main goal of the programme, which was approved in principle in July 2006, is to ensure Russia's energy security by commissioning a new series of standard nuclear units with total installed electrical capacity of at least two gigawatts annually.
[...]
Specific elements of the programme include:

The construction of two new VVER-1000 units, Rostov-2 and Kalinin-4, beginning in 2009 and 2011 respectively;

Commissioning of the BN-800 fast neutron reactor unit Beloyarsky-4, scheduled for 2012. Much of the infrastructure for this unit is complete;

Construction of three new standard units to begin in 2007 or 2008 at new sites next to the existing Novovoronezh and Leningrad nuclear power plant sites. These units will begin operation in 2012 or 2013;

The construction of two standard VVER units a year.

Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) head Sergei Kiriyenko said the programme does not involve any private investment.

Renaissance indeed. Like I said earlier this year:

Once again there are immense plans for nuclear power in Russia.
[...]
If everything goes according to plan, the future of nuclear power in Russia is radiating.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Russia launches € 43 billion nuclear power program | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Russia launches (none / 0)

So they are building a bunch of new reactors while the old decaying ones are just left to fizzle? And they've never really gotten around to figuing out how to clean all their messes up? Oh, goody!

This is a fun read!
http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=285498

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 06:31:17 PM EST

Re: Russia launches (none / 0)

Military reactors, especially the old ones, are always a recipe for disaster. And the way the Societ nuclear program was run is completely insane.

But the new reactors will be of the VVER-variety, which are much like Western PWR's. They are not comparable to the reactors you link to, not more than the military reactors are comparable to windmills.

What about the spent fuel from these new reactors? No problem. Just deal with it like we do in Sweden.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 06:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 1)

What I'm saying is, they need to take that money and CLEAN UP THEIR OLD MESSES before creating new ones. Didn't your mother teach you that?

Russia isn't Sweden. To assume what's good for you is good for them is silly.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 06:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 0)

Will the Russians clean up their old mess? I hope they will. But that has nothing to do with the new program. That is, the way they deal with their legacy waste will not be affected in any way by the construction of these new plants.

Your comment about the Swedish technology not being right for Russia is ignorant. Waste handling can be done in a few ways and this is one works great. If the Russians think they have a better one, that's good for them. But they nor anyone else can't complain that there is no good technical solution for dealing with the waste and use this as an argument against nuclear power.

That argument would then go more like "the Russians can't be trusted with running their own nuclear program". While this argument, alas, does have some historic merit, there isn't anything to do about it. And I am sure the Russians have learnt their lessons. That is often the result when your mistakes impact yourself quite directly.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 07:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (4.00 / 3)

"Your comment about the Swedish technology not being right for Russia is ignorant."

Your idea that whatever is good for Sweden is good for the rest of the world is arrogant. When Americans engage in this type of thinking we get called out, and rightly so, but it seems every bloody European gets some built-in immunity from criticism when they join this place. Oh, except for Russia, whom we are obliged now, apparently to criticize, lest Jerome accuse us of throwing an uncritical Russia love-fest. Oh, except for when it comes to nuclear power, which also has a built-in built-in immunity from criticism here. What's a person to do when talking about Russia and nuclear power? On the one hand, we are not allowed to criticize nuclear anything, on the other, we are not being critical enough of Russia. I need a fucking list because the rules are just getting too overwhelming for me here.

Cannot criticize:
Trains
Nuclear power
Offshore windfarms
The EU
Turkey
The House of Lords
Monarchies
People who tell rape jokes

Am obliged to criticize:
Russia
America
Americans
Cigarettes

Oh, I'm sorry, did you want a real answer?

"And I am sure the Russians have learnt their lessons."

Are you... This based on anything in reality or just your pipe dream?

It sounds to me like you are just thrilled Russia is launching a new nuclear program. I have no doubt the technology, including the waste disposal (not that we've found a really good solution to this yet) is much much better now than it was in the Soviet days. And I'll even allow that the level of beurocratic competence in dealing with such matters may have improved since then. But Russia's history of irresponsible handling of these matters is profound, and I have not seen any evidence that they are now committed to protecting the environment or the lives of the people who live near reactors. It's like a teenager getting a car, totalling it, getting another car, killing people in a drunk driving accident, and then arguing that he should be able to go get the newest safest car because it is so much safer and he has to have a way to get to work and surely he's learned his lesson by now. Plus, he can afford it, so we can't stop him from getting it anyway.

And you are sounding like the car salesman.

I would at least like to see them investing the same amount of money in cleaning up their environment.

And before anyone says ONE WORD, I would say the exact same thing about America.

Sweden? How big is Sweden? How many nuclear accidents have they had again? How many wars are they currently enganged in? How many missles do they have pointed at them? How many people do they represent? How megalomaniacal are their leaders? How much corruption and incompetence exists in their government? When was the last time they made a decision that impacted the better part of the globe? When was the last time Sweden was attacked by terrorists? Now do you understand why nuclear fuel in Sweden just isn't exactly the same as nuclear fuel in Russia? Or America?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 11:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 1)

I agree with the second part of your post, and more or less with the sentiment of the first, but I don't think any of the rules you mention exist. You will get into conflict with some people if you criticise their pet issues, also confronting their emotion from past confrontations ("not this again!...") with others on the issue, but that should be normal.

(I hope the "cannot criticise trains" part was not inspired by anything I posted. I suspect it comes from Jérôme's reaction, which I don't think was because you dared to criticise trains, but it must have originated in several earlier examples in different contexts when he stressed that single major accidents get the spotlight even if they mean a lesser risk for individuals than some minor but much more frequent type of accident.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 06:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 1)

Thanks. I thoroughly expected to be flamed for that post, but I'm getting tired of the fall-in-line mentality here. It's great when everyone agrees on something, I like agreeing with people, finding like-minded folks, but those unwilling to acknowledge or discuss the possible downsides to their pet issues are just as rigid as those they complain about. I mean, are we here to push propaganda or discuss issues?

And no, the train comment was not in response to you. You actually provided the most constructive comments on that thread. It was aimed at the person who wanted to dismiss the story outright while not having even bothered to read it.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 08:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (4.00 / 3)

What fall-in-line mentality? Can't criticise Turkey? The House of Lords? The EU?? What?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 09:01:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So I gather (none / 0)

that we should not fall in line behind you!

Noted ;-)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 10:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I gather (none / 0)

Fortunately, people falling in line behind me never seems to be a problem around here...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 11:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But seriously (none / 0)

do you see people falling in line behind me??
I feel in a minority on a hell of a lot of issues.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 11:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But seriously (none / 0)

Hey, I thought you were supposed to be kidnapped. How can I complain about you if you won't stay kidnapped?

Ok, seriously, I think it is generally considered bad form in the blogosphere to disagree with you. And you do get a little heated when people do make any comments that go against the grain of what you extol. I don't know. I feel like criticizing nuclear energy is really discouraged here. I feel like there are a list (see above) of things that when disputed, are met with a kind of condescending dismissal instead of a logical debunking or acknowledgement that most issues are more complex that we'd often like to admit. I still think ET is better at avoiding this than most places.

On what issues do you feel like your position is the minority position here? Pets? ;)

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 11:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But seriously (none / 1)

I don't think it's bad form to disagree with Jérôme, it's just hard work. Rather like nuclear power: if you're going to criticise it you better be willing to engage in detailed technical arguments with people who are familiar with the details.

I suspect what you're interpreting as condescension is tiredness: it's tiring to deal with the same argument again and again, especially if the argument is informed by an unwitting internalisation of the near-propaganda produced by the corporate media or other near-propagandists.

And you should see the trouble Jérôme gets on things like the constitution-thingy.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 12:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On nuclear (4.00 / 3)

You may remember that DoDo and DeAnander posted extremely detailed posts on nuclear which were by no means favorable. There are indeed a number of pro-nuclear writers on ET (and they may have been more present than the anti-crowd in recent times), but they have also been vigorously opposed. As I've written, I'm mildy favorable to nuclear, mainly on the argument that it's a lot better than coal-fired power, and as we're likely to get (with our current crop of politicians and industrialists) one of the two, we might as well go for the lesser evil. I'm sure some here disagree that it's the lesser evil. We do agree that it should only come after major efforts on energy efficiency and renewable energies.

And I'm sorry I'm abrupt at times. There is an element, as Colman describes, of tiredness at fightign the same things over and over, and sometimes it's just plain rudeness, for which I can only apologize.

The train thing is like terrorism to me. Why do we spend so much time worrying about such insignificant events is beyond me. ("we" being TV news).

I'm still kidnapped, will be until Wednesday, but do emerge from time to time. I got "lucky" to drop in your early comment above and got sucked in. So there.

As to the topic of the diary: Russia has even more scope for energy efficiency than in the West.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 12:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 0)

Like I said, I would at least like to see them investing the same amount of money in cleaning up their environment.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 03:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches (none / 1)

some time ago, i think right before St Pete's summit one v. brainy american advisor called Cohan from a v. serious american institution told us in the newspaper Izvestia that we as a country have v. badly misbehaved recently so we won't get those american nuclear waste they promised us and, accordingly, we won't make fucking loads of money
* still sulk *

But my Q. is what category should i put that american nuclear crap in? My OLD MESSES i HAVEN'T CLEANED UP YET or my NEW ONES I HAVE TO CREATE? Or probably not MINE?

As if we don't have the hordes of energy-starving europeans who regularly wanna to shit us on while we're feeding 'em with our gas and oil for practically nothing...

by lana on Thu Oct 19th, 2006 at 07:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia launches € 43 billion nuclear (4.00 / 2)

Not so fast.

If you read the fine print, they want 40 reactors by 2030 -- while 30 old reactors would be decommissioned.

And they want foreign technology, construction capacity, and private capital (more than half of the sum you named is supposed to come from the industry itself). Currently, there is a single reactor building factory in Russia.

This is another example of those involved talking up a rosy future of a nuclear rennaissance in hopes that purses will open and make it real, not actual reality.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 06:10:44 AM EST

Re: Russia launches € 43 billion nuclear (none / 1)

BTW I'm not sure what exactly Kiriyenko means with lack of private investment -- if this wasn't some translation distortion by the reporter, given that the article talks about nuclear industry funds, while elsewhere I read that the idea is for main energy users Gazprom et al. building power plants of their own.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Oct 20th, 2006 at 06:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Russia (4.00 / 2)

i wish i could trust any government on earth to get nuclear right, and with the warronterra in full swing, it seems frankly insane to push nukes, even as lesser evil.

i hate argments that don't resolve, and i fear most of us agin nuke power are judging from a less informed position, on our gut, or from our hearts, or because we're rational...

i sense stalemate....impasse.

that's real, but we can afford to choose that as a 'result' of our discussions.

i fear protagonists of both sides will descend into violence if we can't find a win-win.

after lengthy and fulsome cogitation.....i find no answer than stressing that we waste staggering amounts of energy, and are mostly ignoring all manner of ways to lower demand, and harvest the energy from the sun, tides and wind, (because the sun is about the right distance for a nuke plant, imo.)

and that we would lead happier, healthier, more fulfilling lives, while leaving an environment we could be proud to author, instead of a ticking time bomb.

deanander said it all way better than i ever could, and poemless, i feel your pain...

maybe one of the first plants will go horribly wrong and over budget and they'll scrap the whole sinister, megalomanic idea.

i can't believe our wages will be siphoned off to support this nightmare because our european governments can't be bothered to come up with ways to invest in conservation, more than insultingly token amounts.

how much would it cost to insulate every roof in europe?

a fraction of what we're going to pay out to heat the stars this winter, i bet.

i have NO axe to grind, and will be happy to admit being a sentimental fool if 50 years from now we're all merrily going uranic and no more 3-mile chernobyls, let alone suitcase dirty bombs and such.

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 at 03:11:28 PM EST

Russia launches € 43 billion nuclear power program | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]