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

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…