Skip to main content

Russia's Nuclear Energy Investment

Russia-NuclearThe English-language news site Russia Today is reporting that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will invest $40 billion (US) in the country's nuclear energy industry over the next seven years.
After that he [Putin] expects the industry will become self-financing.

...Prime minister Vladimir Putin says Russia's budget, boosted by high oil revenues, has enough cash to finance expansion of the country's nuclear power sector.

A terrific amount of money - more than 40 billion dollars - is to be allocated from the state budget for development of the nuclear energy sector and the nuclear industry by 2015. We’ll have to build 26 major generating units in Russia in the next 12 years - about as many as were built in the entire Soviet period.
Some financial context:
At today's exchange rate, $40B (US) = 937 billion Rubles.
937B Rubles / 7 = 134B Rubles invested per year.

According to the IMF, Russia's GDP in 2007 was $1.3 trillion (US) or 30.2 trillion Rubles. Based on 2007 GDP numbers, the Russian government's annual investment in the nuclear industry translates to .44% of the country's GDP.

And what does .44% of the 2007 US GDP look like? $61 billion.

[Edit: That $61 billion outlay would be per year, though GDP is obviously a volatile variable. The point of the number crunching was to establish a benchmark comparison: what would a like capital investment mean in the U.S.]

Comments

Finnerty said…
Note to the next administration and congress: you may want to keep up with the Joneses, er, Putins.
Anonymous said…
Just to be clear, that's $61B/year in the US, or $427B for the seven year period (compared to the $40B in Russia).
Soylent said…
Anonymous, per year.

I'd rather the US goverment didn't meddle too much in which energy source is adopted and just provided a level playing field for the energy sources to compete on, but there's just no chance in hell of that happening.
KevinM said…
Yes, please use that tax money for something else. More effective would be:
1)Less regulation.
2)Maybe tax advantage for being carbonless.
3)Some form of post- project approval that locals with pitchforks and lawyers can't shut a plant built to spec down.
Sovietologist said…
I've written a blog post about some other aspects of Putin's nuclear energy announcement. It sounds like they're determined to build a "commercial" LMFBR.
Anonymous said…
Russia is an energy superpower.. it seems fitting to me they are taking the lead on advanced nuclear reactor technology.

From the cold war days the Russians must also have great expertise in all things nuclear.

--aa2
robert merkel said…
Frankly, in the context of the US economy, $61 billion per year is chicken feed - roughly $20 per person, per year.
Joe Thank You said…
I think at least the readers of this blog can identify with the sentiment that we in the US should invest more in technologies which can lead us to our energy independence.

However, it's important to note that Russia and the US have completely different economies. There are more differences in the state of each nation's energy industry than just the magnitude of real wealth per capita (of which the GNP is really a metric). However, GNP is still probably the simplest and most appropriate yardstick to use here.

It's still tough to try to figure out what this means for the everyday person in a more tangible sense.

Actually, in the calc above you missed an order of magnitude there, for ~300M people in the US, it'd be closer to $200 per person to come up with $60B. That's a new laptop for every American every few years.

However, it's still not a horrible number if you compare it with how much we're spending on gasoline, corporate bailouts, and college educations. Oh, I forgot to mention this little 7 year military action that I like to call "The War on Dirty Tactics".

Also, I'm not sure history would suggest that we follow the Russians when it comes to nuclear energy policy. It's kind of difficult to ignore the single most consequential event in nuclear energy's operating history.

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 …