Russia to invest $54 billion (US) in new nuclear development.

[NNadir]

Russia confirms funding for nuclear expansion.
Russia has formally adopted a US$54 billion nuclear energy development program, with $25 billion of this to 2015 coming from the federal budget. The balance is from industry (Rosatom) funds and no private investment is involved. The Minister of Finance strongly supported the program to increase nuclear share from 15.6% to 18.6% of total, hence improving energy security as well as promoting exports of nuclear power technology. After 2015 all funding will be from Rosatom revenues.

Apart from completing two VVER-1000 units - Rostov/Volgodonsk-2 and Kalinin-4 - and the BN-800 fast reactor at Beloyarsk, there will be three standard VVER reactors built at Leningrad (two units as stage 2) and Novovoronezh (unit 6) and a program of building at least 2000 MWe per year in Russia from 2009 (apart from exports). Thus, by 2015, ten new reactors totalling at least 9.8 GWe should be operating. This appears to be above the low growth scenario outlined in September, which added a further 2400 MWe per year to 2020, giving 37,000 MWe nuclear (19.3% of total) by then.

(The bold is mine.)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/news/2006/latestissue.htm

The new plants should provide about an exajoule per year of primary energy. For comparison purposes the entire earth's output of renewable electricity as of 2004 was about 334 billion-kilowatt-hours or about 1.2 exajoules. This is in addition to the 1.5 exajoules of primary energy (about half an exajoule electric) that nuclear power already supplies in Russia.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

- To convert billion kilowatt-hours to exajoules, multiply by 3.6 X 10^-3. To convert (nuclear) electrical energy to primary energy at 30% thermal efficiency, divide by 0.30. -

It is probably the case that the pace of building new nuclear capacity will accelerate appreciably by 2015, should humanity survive global climate change.

What is interesting about this case is that the Russians have announced that they intend to do this with no private sector financing. From my perspective, private financing is fine, but as climate change is a serious matter, it is necessary and essential that public financing make up for any lack of funds that delays such an important task as providing greenhouse gas free energy.

This should prompt some foot-stamping, whining, and irrational denial over at the luddite organization Greenpeace, but for rational people, this is very important and good news.

[whistle]

1. Peaceful applications or to restart the nuclear arms race?

[NNadir]

4. I don't know. Are new refineries part of the napalm arms race?

Does the refining of diesel fuel raise the terrorism prospect of another diesel fuel bomb like the one that killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma City?

What about the refining of jet fuel? Does this imply that all the world's refineries are intended to fuel F-18's and terrorist jet liners being flown into buildings?

I think the article is very clear on the intent of this nuclear program. It's a power program. Any technology is subject to misuse and abuse, as the mere existence of fossil fuels demonstrates so well. Unlike fossil fuels, which kill continuously in both war and environmental catastrophe, nuclear technology has killed zero people in the last year, in the last 5 years, in the last ten years.

Nuclear power has very little to do with an arms race, the (silly) knee jerk response to the contrary notwithstanding.

As climate change is serious, this is a matter though, that is best left up to people who can think clearly, which almost automatically excludes much of the American public. I would estimate that the elimination of coal - which is technically feasible - would require a trillion dollars of public investment per decade around the world - far less than is spent on oil or for that matter on the damage associated with coal. The Russians are showing a level of rationality not generally associated with Americans by coming up with 5% of this money. Twenty countries matching them could eliminate coal use within ten to fifteen years.

[aquart]

2. Thanks, George.

All you had to do was give Kim a goddamn dinner.

[phantom power]

3. Recent developments are remarkable.

For once, I mean that in a good way.

[NNadir]

5. Well, it may come under the rubric of too little too late but...

...it would seem that the world has recognized that without question it cannot survive without nuclear energy.

Even I am startled at the accelerating development.

We need thousands of reactors though, and I'm not sure it can be done in time.

[phantom power]

6. Humanity is not going to make it through this century unwounded.