Skip to main content

Russia Targets Nuclear to Provide 25% of Electricity by 2020

We've been writing plenty about Russia and its natural gas supplies over the past few weeks. Even though that nation has the largest proven reserves of natural gas (1,700 tcf or 27 percent of global reserves), it hasn't stopped officials from thinking about building new nuclear capacity. From RIA Novosti:
A member of Russia's financial watchdog said Friday that the development of nuclear power was the country's best energy option.

This statement echoes the national energy strategy until 2020 that ranks nuclear power as one of the main guarantors of the country's energy security.

"Our objective is to ensure that within 10 to 15 years nuclear power plants account for at least 25% of overall electricity generated in the country," Mikhail Beskhmelnitsin, an Audit Chamber expert, said. "We have to build 40 to 50 energy units during that period."
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Starvid said…
Germany close their nuclear power plants -> Demand for Russian natural gas increase -> Russia close natural gas plants to accomodate German gas demand -> Russia replace lost gas plants with nuclear power plants

Result: German nuclear power plants move to Russia, Russian gas plants move to Germany.

Cost: In the tens of billions.

The world is insane.
Jim Hopf said…
Starvid,

Not only that, but the Russian nuclear plants are, if anything, somewhat less safe.. Safety being the supposed reason for the nuclear phaseout. As you said, insane.

The developed world has a responsibility to use more nuclear power, saving the "easier" sources like gas for the less deveoped nations of the world.

To the extent that there is a (supposed) proliferation problem with commercial nuclear, it would be alleviated by using more nuclear power in the developed world (i.e., in nations that already have nuclear plants, if not the bomb itself), and less nuclear power in the developing/unstable world.

This is a point I'm willing to give/negotiate a bit on. I'd be willing to curtail the exportation of nuclear to every single tiny country, in exchange for using more of it in the established countries.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …