Skip to main content

Russia Commits to More Nuclear Energy

putin We have to admit that we know less than we might about Russian nuclear energy culture. We do know that it is a major player in the international marketplace and is making deals with any country that has even glanced in the direction of nuclear energy. We know the country has 31 units working currently, generating about 135 billion kWh per year or 16% of Russia’s electricity generation. And we know that most of the plants are clustered in the western quarter of the country – presumably, some of the electricity generated finds its way over to eastern Europe. See here for more.

Regardless of what we don’t know, it really doesn’t surprise us much that Russia is reaffirming its commitment to new plants:

"I believe it is possible to support the application of the Energy Ministry and Rosatom for the additional capitalization of the corporation to the tune of 50 billion rubles," Vladimir Putin said.

Putin said nuclear power plants should generate 25%-30% of Russia's electricity and pledged more allocations to the corporation, despite the ongoing economic crisis. He said 26 nuclear reactors were to be built to reach this target.

Though some recent stories that Russia might slow down its program have pushed Putin to say something now, we noticed a fair number of the stories put it in context of the economic downturn:

The much-anticipated electricity reform, which was meant to head off looming power shortages and depends on new investments from energy companies, is being threatened by the global economic crisis.

Only weeks ago, several energy companies and the gas monopoly Gazprom, which also manages power assets, said they were considering substantial cuts in their investment programs.

We suspect Gazprom might have gotten a call from Putin’s office.

"We should not by any means abandon the plans that were made before," Putin said during a visit to a nuclear plant in Central Russia, the RIA-Novosti agency reported. "The rules of the game do not change during play."

And the call would have sounded something like that.

We almost feel this isn’t a story. Of course Russia is going to build new nuclear plants. Of course the economic downturn might slow things down a bit. It’s almost too obvious.

Putin in a display of national strength. We’re surprised he doesn’t just strangle the fish.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would definitely take Putin if it was one on one battles between world leaders. The US could use someone with a stronger image, and more importantly someone who supports nuclear power.
D. Kosloff said…
We can't even get a Navy SEAL elected to Congress.

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 …