Ukraine has suggested that Russia, France and the US to place bids in a tender to complete the construction of the third and fourth blocks of a nuclear power plant, the country's Fuel and Energy Ministry reported today. In order to win the commission, the ministry in cooperation with the national nuclear energy company Energoatom have outlined criteria for selecting the best bid for the construction of a new reactor facility. The tender will be closed on July 31, 2008.
Fuel and Energy Minister Yury Prodan pointed out that Russia could have a slight advantage in the tender, as in the past the criteria used to select bids for such facilities were drafted with reference to Russian-made nuclear power reactor.
(Source: RBC)
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Ukrainian nuclear reactor leaks radioactive water
A nuclear reactor in western Ukraine was suspended from operating after it was discovered leaking radioactive water, causing no environmental damage, said a Ukrainian official.
A senior official of Rivne nuclear power plant said on condition of anonymity that 1.3 cubic meters of water for cooling the reactor leaked due to pipe break. The leakage was restricted in an enclosed area with no spillover.
An announcement from Ukraine's state unclear power company Energoatom said the leakage "did not exceed permitted norms" and "the reactor was stopped."
"No increase of radioactivity was registered at or near the plant," it said.
Ukraine is heavily dependant on nuclear energy with half of its electricity generated by nuclear power plant despite having experienced Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986.
(Source: Chinaview)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
UKRAINE: Nuclear Power Seen As the Answer to Russia
Ukraine is embarking on a costly and inefficient path of nuclear development, hoping it will halt its energy dependence on Russia.
Critical voices are mounting over the feasibility and desirability of Kiev's 'Energy Strategy of Ukraine' released in March 2006 in the wake of a Russian-Ukrainian gas price war.
Ukraine then accused Russia of raising prices as punishment for Ukraine's pro-Western orientation, whereas Russia claimed it had no reason to keep subsidising gas for Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to replace gas with coal and nuclear energy, a plan that includes the construction of up to 22 new nuclear reactors by 2030.
Ukrainian environmental NGOs have criticised the government for not carrying out a broad public discussion before approving the plan.
"The strategy was written during the gas conflict, and the whole idea was to decrease dependency on Russian gas and completely stop using it," Olexi Pasyuk, energy expert at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine told IPS.
"It's a very unrealistic plan in terms of cost. It was not thought in terms of economic efficiency but rather on how to fulfil energy needs," Pasyuk says. "Even Russia, which is going nuclear, does not plan to build as many reactors."
The plan would imply changing from gas to electricity in house heating, which would require enormous infrastructural investment in a country where every village has pipelines bringing gas.
"Even if it would work, Ukraine cannot have a full nuclear cycle. We have Uranium but you cannot simply use it since Russian technology is required for that," Pasyuk says. "This would still leave us dependent."
Ukraine has the largest volume of discovered Uranium in Europe, but the possibility of enriching it could be politically sensitive for other countries, as it would give it the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Ukraine also lacks a solution to the issue of waste management, with much of it being sent to Russia for reprocessing. The plan also neglects ecological and energy efficiency questions.
Ukraine's economy is one of the most energy intensive in the world, and is three times more wasteful than the average level within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a group of 30 wealthy nations).
According to the plan Ukraine's energy efficiency by 2030 would be at the present level of neighbouring Poland.
But a positive note in the recent gas spat with Russia is that since the eastern neighbour began increasing prices for oil, gas and uranium for nuclear fuel, there have been attempts at increasing energy efficiency.
The Ukrainian cabinet is not to thank for that: financial incentives and legislative conditions for improved energy efficiency and for developing renewable energies are lacking, according a Bankwatch report released in May. Ukraine's energy strategy also contradicts the country's European ambitions, leaving it half-way from the EU (European Union) goal of bringing the share of renewables in overall energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.
Pasyuk is hopeful the ministry will back down on its plans. "Informally it is admitting reviewing the strategy, but officially they still deny any problems with it," he told IPS.
Bankwatch has also accused the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) of playing along with Ukraine's pro-nuclear plans by investing in infrastructure which further develops the country's nuclear industry.
The EBRD has hardly provided support to developing renewable energies, in contradiction with its own country strategy for Ukraine, in which it recognised great potential for wind, small hydro and biomass energy production in the country of 48 million.
In a bid to diversify sources, Ukraine's power utility Energoatom recently signed a deal with the U.S. company Westinghouse to import nuclear fuel.
Critics claim that in comparison with Russian fuel Westinghouse's is more expensive, of lower quality, and not tailored for Soviet-designed reactors, increasing risks.
Finnish and Czech nuclear plants had to stop using Westinghouse fuel in the past due to its incompatibility with Soviet-designed reactors.
The Ukrainian public is not enthusiastic over nuclear power ever since in 1986 a reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear plant (in Ukraine area) exploded, causing the biggest civilian nuclear catastrophe ever. But in spite of the Chernobyl tragedy, the nuclear industry remained stable throughout the country's transition from a Soviet republic to an independent state in 1991.
Between 1990 and 1993 the Ukrainian parliament imposed a moratorium on the commissioning of any new nuclear reactors, but power shortages in the early 1990s made nuclear energy attractive again.
Roughly half of current domestic electricity production is of nuclear origin, with the percentage increasing periodically.
While technical problems keep forcing frequent shut-downs at Ukrainian power plants, proponents of nuclear energy say safety has been continuously improving. Last March the Security Service of Ukraine admitted it was stepping up security at nuclear facilities due to instances of negligence. (END/2008)
(Source: IPS News)
Critical voices are mounting over the feasibility and desirability of Kiev's 'Energy Strategy of Ukraine' released in March 2006 in the wake of a Russian-Ukrainian gas price war.
Ukraine then accused Russia of raising prices as punishment for Ukraine's pro-Western orientation, whereas Russia claimed it had no reason to keep subsidising gas for Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to replace gas with coal and nuclear energy, a plan that includes the construction of up to 22 new nuclear reactors by 2030.
Ukrainian environmental NGOs have criticised the government for not carrying out a broad public discussion before approving the plan.
"The strategy was written during the gas conflict, and the whole idea was to decrease dependency on Russian gas and completely stop using it," Olexi Pasyuk, energy expert at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine told IPS.
"It's a very unrealistic plan in terms of cost. It was not thought in terms of economic efficiency but rather on how to fulfil energy needs," Pasyuk says. "Even Russia, which is going nuclear, does not plan to build as many reactors."
The plan would imply changing from gas to electricity in house heating, which would require enormous infrastructural investment in a country where every village has pipelines bringing gas.
"Even if it would work, Ukraine cannot have a full nuclear cycle. We have Uranium but you cannot simply use it since Russian technology is required for that," Pasyuk says. "This would still leave us dependent."
Ukraine has the largest volume of discovered Uranium in Europe, but the possibility of enriching it could be politically sensitive for other countries, as it would give it the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Ukraine also lacks a solution to the issue of waste management, with much of it being sent to Russia for reprocessing. The plan also neglects ecological and energy efficiency questions.
Ukraine's economy is one of the most energy intensive in the world, and is three times more wasteful than the average level within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a group of 30 wealthy nations).
According to the plan Ukraine's energy efficiency by 2030 would be at the present level of neighbouring Poland.
But a positive note in the recent gas spat with Russia is that since the eastern neighbour began increasing prices for oil, gas and uranium for nuclear fuel, there have been attempts at increasing energy efficiency.
The Ukrainian cabinet is not to thank for that: financial incentives and legislative conditions for improved energy efficiency and for developing renewable energies are lacking, according a Bankwatch report released in May. Ukraine's energy strategy also contradicts the country's European ambitions, leaving it half-way from the EU (European Union) goal of bringing the share of renewables in overall energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.
Pasyuk is hopeful the ministry will back down on its plans. "Informally it is admitting reviewing the strategy, but officially they still deny any problems with it," he told IPS.
Bankwatch has also accused the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) of playing along with Ukraine's pro-nuclear plans by investing in infrastructure which further develops the country's nuclear industry.
The EBRD has hardly provided support to developing renewable energies, in contradiction with its own country strategy for Ukraine, in which it recognised great potential for wind, small hydro and biomass energy production in the country of 48 million.
In a bid to diversify sources, Ukraine's power utility Energoatom recently signed a deal with the U.S. company Westinghouse to import nuclear fuel.
Critics claim that in comparison with Russian fuel Westinghouse's is more expensive, of lower quality, and not tailored for Soviet-designed reactors, increasing risks.
Finnish and Czech nuclear plants had to stop using Westinghouse fuel in the past due to its incompatibility with Soviet-designed reactors.
The Ukrainian public is not enthusiastic over nuclear power ever since in 1986 a reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear plant (in Ukraine area) exploded, causing the biggest civilian nuclear catastrophe ever. But in spite of the Chernobyl tragedy, the nuclear industry remained stable throughout the country's transition from a Soviet republic to an independent state in 1991.
Between 1990 and 1993 the Ukrainian parliament imposed a moratorium on the commissioning of any new nuclear reactors, but power shortages in the early 1990s made nuclear energy attractive again.
Roughly half of current domestic electricity production is of nuclear origin, with the percentage increasing periodically.
While technical problems keep forcing frequent shut-downs at Ukrainian power plants, proponents of nuclear energy say safety has been continuously improving. Last March the Security Service of Ukraine admitted it was stepping up security at nuclear facilities due to instances of negligence. (END/2008)
(Source: IPS News)
Monday, May 5, 2008
Ukraine remembers Chernobyl amid anti-nuclear protests
Ukraine paid tribute Saturday to victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 22 years ago while anti-nuclear demonstrators at home and abroad also recalled the worst civilian nuclear disaster in history.
A group of Ukrainians led by President Viktor Yushchenko laid a wreath during the night at a monument to the victims of the catastrophe in which a reactor exploded one night in April 1986.
"The Chernobyl catastrophe became planetary and even now continues to take its toll on people's health and the environment," the health ministry said in a statement marking the anniversary.
Demonstrators gathered in the centre of the capital Kiev brandishing placards including one reading: "Don't build a new Chernobyl."
"The consequences of the Chernobyl power station accident are huge," said activist Dmitry Khmara. "We are worried that they are again telling us to go along the risky path of developing atomic energy."
In Minsk, capital of the neighbouring republic of Belarus which suffered fallout from Cherobyl, some 2,000 people protested against plans for the country's first nuclear power station.
"No to another Chernobyl," read one placard. "We have two misfortunes, Lukashenko and radiation," read another. Alexander Lukashenko is the authoritarian president of Belarus, much criticised by the opposition and foreign governments for perceived human rights violations.
In Geneva, hundreds of anti-nuclear demonstrators wearing white masks formed a human chain around the headquarters of the World Health Organisation.
The anniversary was also marked by an all-night vigil in a small Ukrainian town called Slavutich, 50 kilometres (30 miles) from Chernobyl, where many of the reactor site's employees lived.
The disaster occurred on April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am local time, when one of the reactors exploded -- contaminating the Soviet states of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus with the fallout also spreading to other parts of Europe.
Over 25,000 people known as "liquidators" -- most of them Ukrainians, Russians and Belarussians -- died getting the accident under control and constructing a concrete shield over the wreckage, according to Ukrainian official figures.
A United Nations toll published in September 2005 set the number of victims at just 4,000, a figure challenged by non-governmental organisations.
In Ukraine alone, 2.3 million people are designated officially as "having suffered from the catastrophe."
Some 4,400 Ukrainians, children or adolescents at the time of the accident, have undergone operations for thyroid cancer, the most common consequence of radiation, the health ministry says.
Chernobyl nuclear power station was finally closed in 2000 after one reactor had continued producing electricity.
But the dead power station remains a threat because the concrete cover laid over 200 tonnes of magma, consisting of radioactive fuel, is cracking.
The magma is "our worst problem. It is highly radioactive and we are doing all we can so that rain and snow do not make it into the sarcophagus," said Ukrainian Emergency Situations Minister Volodymyr Shandra.
Work is in hand to reinforce the seal hurriedly flung over the reactor in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
Work will also start later this year on a new steel cover due to be in place by 2012.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday marked the anniversary by pledging UN assistance for the stricken region's renewal.
(Source: AFP)
A group of Ukrainians led by President Viktor Yushchenko laid a wreath during the night at a monument to the victims of the catastrophe in which a reactor exploded one night in April 1986.
"The Chernobyl catastrophe became planetary and even now continues to take its toll on people's health and the environment," the health ministry said in a statement marking the anniversary.
Demonstrators gathered in the centre of the capital Kiev brandishing placards including one reading: "Don't build a new Chernobyl."
"The consequences of the Chernobyl power station accident are huge," said activist Dmitry Khmara. "We are worried that they are again telling us to go along the risky path of developing atomic energy."
In Minsk, capital of the neighbouring republic of Belarus which suffered fallout from Cherobyl, some 2,000 people protested against plans for the country's first nuclear power station.
"No to another Chernobyl," read one placard. "We have two misfortunes, Lukashenko and radiation," read another. Alexander Lukashenko is the authoritarian president of Belarus, much criticised by the opposition and foreign governments for perceived human rights violations.
In Geneva, hundreds of anti-nuclear demonstrators wearing white masks formed a human chain around the headquarters of the World Health Organisation.
The anniversary was also marked by an all-night vigil in a small Ukrainian town called Slavutich, 50 kilometres (30 miles) from Chernobyl, where many of the reactor site's employees lived.
The disaster occurred on April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am local time, when one of the reactors exploded -- contaminating the Soviet states of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus with the fallout also spreading to other parts of Europe.
Over 25,000 people known as "liquidators" -- most of them Ukrainians, Russians and Belarussians -- died getting the accident under control and constructing a concrete shield over the wreckage, according to Ukrainian official figures.
A United Nations toll published in September 2005 set the number of victims at just 4,000, a figure challenged by non-governmental organisations.
In Ukraine alone, 2.3 million people are designated officially as "having suffered from the catastrophe."
Some 4,400 Ukrainians, children or adolescents at the time of the accident, have undergone operations for thyroid cancer, the most common consequence of radiation, the health ministry says.
Chernobyl nuclear power station was finally closed in 2000 after one reactor had continued producing electricity.
But the dead power station remains a threat because the concrete cover laid over 200 tonnes of magma, consisting of radioactive fuel, is cracking.
The magma is "our worst problem. It is highly radioactive and we are doing all we can so that rain and snow do not make it into the sarcophagus," said Ukrainian Emergency Situations Minister Volodymyr Shandra.
Work is in hand to reinforce the seal hurriedly flung over the reactor in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
Work will also start later this year on a new steel cover due to be in place by 2012.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday marked the anniversary by pledging UN assistance for the stricken region's renewal.
(Source: AFP)
Friday, April 25, 2008
22 years after disaster, Chernobyl reactor is getting new shelter
Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a larger, stronger shelter to cover the ruins of the exploded Soviet power plant and prevent further contamination.
For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse.
"After we complete this project we will reach the goal of a safe state in Chernobyl," said Vince Novak, Director of the Nuclear Safety Department with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which manages the $505 million project.
The new shelter is just part of a broader $1.4 billion effort financed by international donors that began in 1997. The project involves fixing the current shelter, monitoring radiation, training experts and building a massive new steel shelter that will slide over the current structure.
Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radiation over a large swath of the former Soviet Union and much of northern Europe in the world's worst nuclear accident. An area roughly half the size of Italy was contaminated, forcing the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of people.
In the first two months after the disaster, 31 people died from exposure to radioactivity, but there is heated debate over the subsequent toll. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 people will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Some groups, such as Greenpeace, insist the toll could be 10 times higher.
The old shelter, called a "sarcophagus," was built in just six months to cover the demolished reactor. But intense radiation has weakened the shelter, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It has also been damaged by the rainwater and snow that got inside through cracks in its roof, experts say.
Officials say that were a tornado or an earthquake to hit the area the shelter could collapse, releasing clouds of poisonous radioactive dust.
"This installation has a low or limited safety," said Valeriy Bykov, deputy chairperson of Ukraine's State Nuclear Regulatory Committee. "Some external factors can create dangerous radioactive incidents such as the emission of dust and its spread to great distances."
The first step, shoring up the sarcophagus, is almost complete, Ukrainian and EBRD officials say.
Later, a 105 meter (345-foot) tall, 260 meter (853 feet) wide and 150 meter (490-foot) long arch weighing 20,000 tons will be built and slid over the old shelter using railtracks.
The front side of the arch will be covered by metal, the back side will abut the wall of the adjacent reactor No.3. Construction of the arch is scheduled to begin next year and be completed in 2012, and it is designed to last 100 years.
The new structure will be big enough to house the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in New York. The project is designed and built by the French-led consortium Novarka, which includes the companies Bouygues SA and Vinci SA.
Workers wearing protective suits and respiratory masks will build the arch at a site about 120 meters (yards) away from the reactor, to minimize exposure to radiation. Specialists who need to be closer to the reactor will work in shifts as short as several minutes.
Once the arch is erected, the most unstable parts of the old shelter and the reactor will be dismantled and removed. In 50 years, the melted nuclear fuel will be extracted from the reactor, although it is unclear where it will be stored.
Experts still debate how much radioactive material remains inside the reactor. The EBRD says 95 percent of the reactor's nuclear inventory remains inside the ruins, but some experts believe most of the radiation was released in the days after the accident.
The new shelter has evoked mixed feelings among Ukrainians.
Some are happy the reactor is finally going to be safely enclosed. Others, especially those directly affected by the disaster, accuse the government of playing up the need for a new shelter to get international aid while downplaying their health problems.
Even as the project is underway, scientists continue to debate it. Some favored alternate approaches, such as embedding the reactor in concrete or dismantling it. Other experts say the government should be more concerned about the health threat from contaminated land, ground water, equipment and spent nuclear fuel.
Nuclear energy is key for this country of 46 million. Ukraine today operates 15 reactors at four power plants, which generate nearly half of all its electricity. None is of the Chernobyl type.
(Source: International Herald Tribune)
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Ukraine's nuclear authorities are playing with fire
Ukrainian politicians have made one more move aimed at easing their dependence on Russia's nuclear fuel supplies.
In late March, Ukraine's nuclear power company Energoatom signed a five-year contract with U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Company to provide nuclear fuel to three Ukrainian reactors at the Yuzhnoukrainsky nuclear power plant in 2011-2015.
Last year, it held energetic talks with Canadian companies on the construction of CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) reactors, the older relatives of the Chernobyl reactor, which exploded in 1986.
These two instances show Ukraine's desire to ease its dependence on Russia. Ukraine has 15 VVER water-moderated water-cooled reactors built during Soviet times, which use fuel imported from Russia. Westinghouse is to supply 630 fuel assemblies for the annual recharging of at least three VVER blocks.
Although diversification is a noble goal, the operation of nuclear power plants is highly complicated. Safety alone should encourage Ukraine to use nuclear fuel for which its nuclear power plants were designed, i.e. fuel made in Russia.
The Chernobyl tragedy should have been enough warning for Ukraine, but political ambitions have proven to be stronger than fear.
Khusein Chechenov, a member of the Russian parliamentary subcommittee on nuclear energy, said, "It was a political decision taken without due regard for economic or scientific considerations."
According to him, the contract is a mistake made deliberately to spite Moscow.
Westinghouse's fuel assemblies are 25% more expensive than those provided by Russia's TVEL Corporation and their quality is questionable. Ukraine acted impulsively, signing the contract with the U.S. company during negotiations on Russian fuel deliveries after 2010.
The contract includes quite a few reservations, such as Ukraine's right to terminate it if its regulators do not permit the use of American fuel, or if the assemblies malfunction.
(Source: RIA Novosti)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Westinghouse wins Ukraine fuel supply deal
US-based Westinghouse will supply nuclear fuel to three Russian-designed power reactors in Ukraine. The contract has inspired bitter comment from Russian observers.
 |
| South Ukraine |
In 2000, a financial award was granted by the US government as part of a US/Ukrainian initiative to reduce Ukraine's dependency on Russia for fuel. As well as nuclear fuel, the country also imports Russian oil, while gas supply and pricing has been a major issue in recent years. In 2005, the initiative led to six Westinghouse fuel assemblies were introduced to a South Ukraine reactor on an experimental basis; In 2009, 42 more will be added.
The new contract includes special terms to protect both the supplier and the buyer, national electricity utility Energoatom. Should Energoatom fail to gain regulatory approval for the use of Westinghouse fuel assemblies on a large scale, the American firm could terminate the contract with no penalty. On the other hand, if Westinghouse failed to meet technical standards, Energoatom could cancel.
In reaction to the announcement, Russia's Rosatom released a series of expert comments which roundly denounced the move. The various dignitaries agreed the contract was technically dubious and could be a negotiation tool during talks between Energoatom and TVEL for the remainder of nuclear fuel supplies. Furthermore they linked it to Ukraine's relationship with the European Union and its desire to join the Nato defence pact.
Chechenov Hussein, a member of the Russian Federation Commission on Natural Monopolies' subcommittee on atomic energy, said such contracts 'will bring Ukraine more harm than good.' He continued: 'I think this is a political decision not backed by economic and scientific considerations. The operation of a nuclear power plant involves the use of sophisticated, interconnected technology which can not introduce anything foreign.'(Source: World Nuclear News)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
