Russia President Dmitry Medvedev paid an official visit to India on December 4-5. During his two-day maiden trip to India, Russia and India signed 10 agreements involving cooperation in such spheres as space technology, military, nuclear energy, tourism and financial business, including the deal on the construction of four more reactors at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Station (NPS), located at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, south India. To date, the construction of two reactors has already completed at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project.
In the field of bilateral trade, Russia and India plan to lift their trade volume to 10 billion US dollars by the year 2010.
President Medvedev has been the first foreign head of state to visit India in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. Right after the terror attacks, the Russian government announced that there was no change in Medvedev's India visit plans. This shows the traditional and real bilateral partnership between Russia and India is deep-rooted and profound.
Russia and India are the traditional alliance. Out of their respective consideration of strategic interests, bilateral ties have been warmed up since the mid 1990s. And bilateral relations between the two countries have experienced sustainable, steady growth after Vladimir V. Putin became the Russian president. In 2000, Putin made his first ever visit to India, during which the Strategic Partnership Declaration was signed and the strategic partnership reached a new height.
In the new international situation and particularly with the global financial crisis as a backdrop, President Medvedev's India trip is of special significance. Due to a drastic drop in global oil prices, Russia's oil exports have been negatively affected. Hence, the expansion of the nation's economic and trade ties with India has become the important contents of the new Russian president's first visit to India.
Nuclear technology and military spheres are superior realms of Russia's India trade. In the field of nuclear matters, Russia and India signed an intergovernmental agreement on the construction of four more reactors, each worth 2 billion dollars. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed the landmark nuclear deal signed with Russia on Dec. 5th as a "milestone in the history of our cooperation"in the sphere of energy.
Meanwhile, President Dmitry Medvedev, who had signed the agreement for Russia to develop four more nuclear reactors in Tamil Nadu, said: "Today we have opened a new page"in bilateral relations.
Russia's swift conclusion of an accord on the construction of four more reactors is also related to exterior factors. In early October, the U.S. Senate voted to ratify the U.S.-India Agreement for Cooperation concerning Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy. The deal would allow India to buy American nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in more than 30 years. Under such circumstances, Russia would not be able to enjoy the right for monopolizing India's nuclear energy field. So it takes for granted that Russia will ink the deal with India soon afterwards.
Military cooperation poses a vital link of Russia-India ties. Traditionally, India has been a principal buyer of Russia-made weaponry. President Medvedev has attached great importance to cooperation in this sphere and, during his India trip the Russian president cited military cooperation as one of the most crucial fields in bilateral cooperation. What worthparticular mentioning here is that arms Russia has sold to India is always is the most sophisticated and the quality is much higher than that of those weapons it sold to other countries. It also indicates from one aspect an extraordinary strategic partnership forged between Russia and India.
As a matter of course, there are some differences between the two nations. Citing the problem regarding costs for revamping Admiral Gorshko aircraft carrier Russia sold to India, which remains unsettled, the India found it impossible to accept its refit costs, as Russia has raised or increased the quoted prices by a very big margin.
So, it can be acknowledged that President Medvedev's India trip has continued the bid power diplomacy, energy diplomacy and geopolitics diplomacy prompted or spurred by former Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has indeed deepened the Russian-Indian traditional and real strategic partnership and, beyond any doubt, it constitutes a vital cornerstone of Russia's Asia diplomacy.
Source: People's Daily Online
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
High oil prices may boost nuclear power
Oil, priced at US$147 a barrel three months ago, was predicted to hit US$200 a barrel, strengthening calls for alternative energy sources. Current oil prices, hovering at US$50 a barrel, have mostly muted the resistance to oil in the United States for the time being. However, the lower prices are only temporary, and US$100 a barrel is likely to end up being the norm.
In comparison, nuclear energy is cheaper. Organizations like Greenpeace are not as vociferous in their opposition to nuclear power as they previously were. This is probably due to the fact that future energy demands can largely be met with nuclear power, while alternate renewable sources like solar and wind energy can only supplement nuclear, coal and hydroelectric sources.
Coal, gas and oil can provide energy at current levels of consumption for the next 30 to 40 years. Although coal with clean technology will outlast oil, plans for alternative energy sources have to be put in place now, otherwise blackouts in the United States within the next 30 years are a distinct possibility. On the other hand, the excessive use of coal without the means to strip it of harmful carbon dioxide will contribute to global warming.
However, the possibility of nuclear energy becoming the main source of energy, setting aside the incidents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, needs to be reexamined. The United States has not granted a license for the construction of a new nuclear power plant in 30 years, while France continues to build them and produces around 78 percent of its electricity through nuclear power.
The French have advanced with closed fuel cycle technology, which minimizes the dumping of spent nuclear fuel. Stung by the high cost of energy and global warming, the United States has now begun considering nuclear energy as a feasible alternative. Six applications to construct new nuclear power plants have already been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, two of which may receive a go ahead in 2009.
There is not much oil left in the world, except in Russia, Alaska and some offshore locations. The wells in the Middle East will run dry from around 2030 to 2040, while natural gas may last 30 to 40 years longer. The oil-producing Middle Eastern countries are aware of this fact and, wishing to maximize their advantage, have been raising oil prices over the past three years.
In the heydays of oil exports, oil-producing nations were spendthrifts. In order to maintain expensive lifestyles, they hiked oil prices. For example, Saudi Arabia needs a minimum of US$65 per barrel to pay for its expenses. Kuwait needs US$50 per barrel, Iran US$75 and Venezuela US$90 to balance their budgets. If oil prices fall below US$70 per barrel on average, these nations have to dip into their cash reserves, which will quickly be exhausted. So these nations wish to keep oil prices floating well above the US$75-$90 mark.
Now the question is whether or not nuclear power generation is cost-effective. Studies published before 2006 assumed oil prices to be US$50 per barrel. As the floor for oil prices will be higher than this estimate, it is necessary to take a fresh look based on present-day market conditions. Let us examine a few details of previous studies.
First, what is the kilowatt-hour power cost? A 2005 study undertaken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development assumed oil prices at US$50 per barrel in 2010 and provided statistics for power generation costs for three energy sources – nuclear energy, coal and gas. Unfortunately, their studies were limited to developed and almost-developed countries.
(Figures in the following table are shown in cents/kilowatt hour for nuclear energy, coal and gas, respectively, at an 85 percent load factor.)
France: 2.54, 3.33 and 3.92
Japan: 4.80, 4.95 and 5.21
Canada: 2.60, 3.11 and 4.11
USA: 3.01, 2.71 and 4.67
Based on the above, oil at US$90 per barrel with corresponding increases in natural gas prices will push gas power generation costs much higher.
Reliable data on India and China is unavailable, but preliminary studies indicate China and India’s nuclear power generation costs are a bit higher due to local conditions.
The point is, geography also affects power generation costs. France and Canada are nuclear energy producers with the lowest costs, having mastered the art of nuclear technology over the past 40 years. The United States is not too far behind. Japan’s high costs are due to its geography and lack of natural resources.
Second, the main factors that drive up power plant costs are capital cost of the plant, operating costs, and fueling and refueling costs.
Each factor acts differently for different geographical locations. If a country is rich in gas or in close proximity to gas fields, an advantage is low transportation costs. Until a decade ago, coal was the cheapest source of energy and most countries had it in abundance. The impact of carbon dioxide on global warming has pushed most countries, except China, to look for alternate sources of energy.
Soon, carbon dioxide-emitting power plants will have to clean up their act at a high cost or cease operations altogether. Already, global warming has melted glaciers, reduced river water levels and is melting the all-important polar ice caps.
Natural gas is the next best option to coal. It creates less greenhouse gas. As it is found in abundance underground, it can be easily transported over long distances. However, due to excessive use, these wells will run dry soon.
Nuclear energy is likely to meet the world’s growing energy needs, as it is cost effective. Like coal, it has its disadvantages, including high capital costs for “brown fields” – properties contaminated with hazardous materials, blighted or functionally obsolete – the requirement of a highly trained workforce, problems with disposing spent fuel and the West’s monopoly on nuclear technology.
Supply needs for coal, gas and nuclear plants differ from country to country. Coal is abundant in most countries, except Japan. New sources of gas all over the world make it a better source of energy than coal.
In comparison, uranium, the raw material for nuclear power plants, is in limited supply. Well-developed mines in Canada, Australia, Russia, Central Africa and the United States supply uranium under internationally supervised safeguards. India and China have only a limited supply of uranium and therefore depend upon others for it. India was forced to seek out the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal this year, after its existing nuclear power plants began to run at 50 percent capacity due to scarcity of uranium.
A similar deal was negotiated by China a decade earlier. The Chinese are planning to construct 30 nuclear power plants with the help of Western nations in the next 20 years. Since China’s first preference is still coal over nuclear energy, they plan to continue building coal-fired power plants as well.
Sooner or later, a properly safeguarded uranium and plutonium supply cycle will be developed. The West holds a close monopoly on nuclear technology to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It has a point; the dual use of nuclear power scares everyone. Future technological developments will prevent plutonium from being extracted from spent fuel, which will reduce attention toward its potential ill use.
In summary, nuclear energy is a better option to meet the world’s energy needs. The United States must take the initiative for the sake of its own energy security and develop safer technology for others.
India supports the United States in this endeavor. While the United States has stopgap options, namely, exploiting oil reserves in Alaska and offshore reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, India does not have that luxury and so must build nuclear power plants quickly. In contrast, China, with its own mindset, will most likely continue building coal-fired power plants and polluting the earth.
(Source: UPI Asia)
In comparison, nuclear energy is cheaper. Organizations like Greenpeace are not as vociferous in their opposition to nuclear power as they previously were. This is probably due to the fact that future energy demands can largely be met with nuclear power, while alternate renewable sources like solar and wind energy can only supplement nuclear, coal and hydroelectric sources.
Coal, gas and oil can provide energy at current levels of consumption for the next 30 to 40 years. Although coal with clean technology will outlast oil, plans for alternative energy sources have to be put in place now, otherwise blackouts in the United States within the next 30 years are a distinct possibility. On the other hand, the excessive use of coal without the means to strip it of harmful carbon dioxide will contribute to global warming.
However, the possibility of nuclear energy becoming the main source of energy, setting aside the incidents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, needs to be reexamined. The United States has not granted a license for the construction of a new nuclear power plant in 30 years, while France continues to build them and produces around 78 percent of its electricity through nuclear power.
The French have advanced with closed fuel cycle technology, which minimizes the dumping of spent nuclear fuel. Stung by the high cost of energy and global warming, the United States has now begun considering nuclear energy as a feasible alternative. Six applications to construct new nuclear power plants have already been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, two of which may receive a go ahead in 2009.
There is not much oil left in the world, except in Russia, Alaska and some offshore locations. The wells in the Middle East will run dry from around 2030 to 2040, while natural gas may last 30 to 40 years longer. The oil-producing Middle Eastern countries are aware of this fact and, wishing to maximize their advantage, have been raising oil prices over the past three years.
In the heydays of oil exports, oil-producing nations were spendthrifts. In order to maintain expensive lifestyles, they hiked oil prices. For example, Saudi Arabia needs a minimum of US$65 per barrel to pay for its expenses. Kuwait needs US$50 per barrel, Iran US$75 and Venezuela US$90 to balance their budgets. If oil prices fall below US$70 per barrel on average, these nations have to dip into their cash reserves, which will quickly be exhausted. So these nations wish to keep oil prices floating well above the US$75-$90 mark.
Now the question is whether or not nuclear power generation is cost-effective. Studies published before 2006 assumed oil prices to be US$50 per barrel. As the floor for oil prices will be higher than this estimate, it is necessary to take a fresh look based on present-day market conditions. Let us examine a few details of previous studies.
First, what is the kilowatt-hour power cost? A 2005 study undertaken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development assumed oil prices at US$50 per barrel in 2010 and provided statistics for power generation costs for three energy sources – nuclear energy, coal and gas. Unfortunately, their studies were limited to developed and almost-developed countries.
(Figures in the following table are shown in cents/kilowatt hour for nuclear energy, coal and gas, respectively, at an 85 percent load factor.)
France: 2.54, 3.33 and 3.92
Japan: 4.80, 4.95 and 5.21
Canada: 2.60, 3.11 and 4.11
USA: 3.01, 2.71 and 4.67
Based on the above, oil at US$90 per barrel with corresponding increases in natural gas prices will push gas power generation costs much higher.
Reliable data on India and China is unavailable, but preliminary studies indicate China and India’s nuclear power generation costs are a bit higher due to local conditions.
The point is, geography also affects power generation costs. France and Canada are nuclear energy producers with the lowest costs, having mastered the art of nuclear technology over the past 40 years. The United States is not too far behind. Japan’s high costs are due to its geography and lack of natural resources.
Second, the main factors that drive up power plant costs are capital cost of the plant, operating costs, and fueling and refueling costs.
Each factor acts differently for different geographical locations. If a country is rich in gas or in close proximity to gas fields, an advantage is low transportation costs. Until a decade ago, coal was the cheapest source of energy and most countries had it in abundance. The impact of carbon dioxide on global warming has pushed most countries, except China, to look for alternate sources of energy.
Soon, carbon dioxide-emitting power plants will have to clean up their act at a high cost or cease operations altogether. Already, global warming has melted glaciers, reduced river water levels and is melting the all-important polar ice caps.
Natural gas is the next best option to coal. It creates less greenhouse gas. As it is found in abundance underground, it can be easily transported over long distances. However, due to excessive use, these wells will run dry soon.
Nuclear energy is likely to meet the world’s growing energy needs, as it is cost effective. Like coal, it has its disadvantages, including high capital costs for “brown fields” – properties contaminated with hazardous materials, blighted or functionally obsolete – the requirement of a highly trained workforce, problems with disposing spent fuel and the West’s monopoly on nuclear technology.
Supply needs for coal, gas and nuclear plants differ from country to country. Coal is abundant in most countries, except Japan. New sources of gas all over the world make it a better source of energy than coal.
In comparison, uranium, the raw material for nuclear power plants, is in limited supply. Well-developed mines in Canada, Australia, Russia, Central Africa and the United States supply uranium under internationally supervised safeguards. India and China have only a limited supply of uranium and therefore depend upon others for it. India was forced to seek out the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal this year, after its existing nuclear power plants began to run at 50 percent capacity due to scarcity of uranium.
A similar deal was negotiated by China a decade earlier. The Chinese are planning to construct 30 nuclear power plants with the help of Western nations in the next 20 years. Since China’s first preference is still coal over nuclear energy, they plan to continue building coal-fired power plants as well.
Sooner or later, a properly safeguarded uranium and plutonium supply cycle will be developed. The West holds a close monopoly on nuclear technology to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It has a point; the dual use of nuclear power scares everyone. Future technological developments will prevent plutonium from being extracted from spent fuel, which will reduce attention toward its potential ill use.
In summary, nuclear energy is a better option to meet the world’s energy needs. The United States must take the initiative for the sake of its own energy security and develop safer technology for others.
India supports the United States in this endeavor. While the United States has stopgap options, namely, exploiting oil reserves in Alaska and offshore reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, India does not have that luxury and so must build nuclear power plants quickly. In contrast, China, with its own mindset, will most likely continue building coal-fired power plants and polluting the earth.
(Source: UPI Asia)
Russia Russia, India to ink deals on arms, space, nuclear power
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's current visit to India is expected to see the two countries sign a number of high-profile deals.
The Russian president arrived in India on Thursday on an official two-day visit to discuss bilateral ties amid the global financial crisis and anti-terrorist efforts in the aftermath of the recent Mumbai attacks that left 174 people dead.
Medvedev is being accompanied by a host of officials and businessmen from various state-run and private agencies and companies during his visit.
Rosoboronexport, the state-run arms exporter, said on Friday it would sign a contract on the delivery of 80 Mi-17 Hip military transport helicopters to the Indian air force.
Russian nuclear power chief Sergei Kiriyenko said Russia and India would sign an agreement to build another four reactors at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant and a protocol on the delivery of nuclear fuel worth $700 million to Indian nuclear power stations. The visit may also see the signing of an agreement for Russia to build new nuclear power plants in the country.
Russia's space agency said Moscow and New Delhi would sign a new document on cooperation in space exploration, which includes plans to send two Indian astronauts to space on board a Russian Soyuz spacecraft in 2013.
Russia's Statistics Service earlier said accumulated Indian investment in Russia totaled $821 million, including $718 million of foreign direct investment. Russia invested $18 million in India in the first half of 2008.
The two countries plan to increase trade to $10 billion by 2010 from this year's expected level of $7 billion, and diversify economic cooperation in the future.
(Source: RIA Novosti)
The Russian president arrived in India on Thursday on an official two-day visit to discuss bilateral ties amid the global financial crisis and anti-terrorist efforts in the aftermath of the recent Mumbai attacks that left 174 people dead.
Medvedev is being accompanied by a host of officials and businessmen from various state-run and private agencies and companies during his visit.
Rosoboronexport, the state-run arms exporter, said on Friday it would sign a contract on the delivery of 80 Mi-17 Hip military transport helicopters to the Indian air force.
Russian nuclear power chief Sergei Kiriyenko said Russia and India would sign an agreement to build another four reactors at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant and a protocol on the delivery of nuclear fuel worth $700 million to Indian nuclear power stations. The visit may also see the signing of an agreement for Russia to build new nuclear power plants in the country.
Russia's space agency said Moscow and New Delhi would sign a new document on cooperation in space exploration, which includes plans to send two Indian astronauts to space on board a Russian Soyuz spacecraft in 2013.
Russia's Statistics Service earlier said accumulated Indian investment in Russia totaled $821 million, including $718 million of foreign direct investment. Russia invested $18 million in India in the first half of 2008.
The two countries plan to increase trade to $10 billion by 2010 from this year's expected level of $7 billion, and diversify economic cooperation in the future.
(Source: RIA Novosti)
India: 1500 MW of nuclear power to be added by 2009
Kakodkar says the aim is to generate 20,000 MW by 2020; half of this to come from PHWR.
First fast breeder reactor would get commissioned in 2010-11.
There is need to grow primary energy supply by at least 3-4 times.
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on Thursday expressed confidence that 1,500 MW of nuclear power would be added to the national grid in 2009 as the country was poised to benefit from the civil nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia, France and United States.
He was addressing the 11th India Power Forum meet here.
Dr. Kakodkar said he envisaged nuclear power plants comprising 6-8 units of 1000 MW each built over the next 9-10 years.
Fuel supply
The nuclear power programme was hitherto constrained by limited fuel supplies, but with the signing of the nuclear deal with the U.S. and strategies to enhance domestic uranium supplies, the country would certainly exceed the 2020 target.
The country’s first fast breeder reactor was under construction and on schedule to get commissioned in 2010-11.
“Two-three nuclear power units will be connected to the national grid next year and they would add about 1,500 MW. The nation now has a capacity to generate 4,120 MW of nuclear power, but due to shortage of nuclear fuel most of the units are running a little over half their capacity.”
It was aimed to generate 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020.
Half of this would come from indigenously developed Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR).
“We aim to produce 10,000 MW through PHWRs, about 5,000 MW through imported reactors and about 2,500 MW through Fast Breeder Reactors, he said.
Talks with vendors
India was in discussion with several foreign nuclear vendors. An important guarantee it was seeking from any vendor was life-time uninterrupted supply of fuel and the right to re-process the spent fuel.
This was important because for delivering a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would need to grow its primary energy supply by at least 3-4 times and electricity supply by 5-7 times, he said.
India was fortunate that it had developed the recycle capabilities, a situation the world should tackle, as global fuel sources were coming under increasing stress, Dr. Kakodkar added.
(Source: The Hindu)
First fast breeder reactor would get commissioned in 2010-11.
There is need to grow primary energy supply by at least 3-4 times.
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar on Thursday expressed confidence that 1,500 MW of nuclear power would be added to the national grid in 2009 as the country was poised to benefit from the civil nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia, France and United States.
He was addressing the 11th India Power Forum meet here.
Dr. Kakodkar said he envisaged nuclear power plants comprising 6-8 units of 1000 MW each built over the next 9-10 years.
Fuel supply
The nuclear power programme was hitherto constrained by limited fuel supplies, but with the signing of the nuclear deal with the U.S. and strategies to enhance domestic uranium supplies, the country would certainly exceed the 2020 target.
The country’s first fast breeder reactor was under construction and on schedule to get commissioned in 2010-11.
“Two-three nuclear power units will be connected to the national grid next year and they would add about 1,500 MW. The nation now has a capacity to generate 4,120 MW of nuclear power, but due to shortage of nuclear fuel most of the units are running a little over half their capacity.”
It was aimed to generate 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020.
Half of this would come from indigenously developed Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR).
“We aim to produce 10,000 MW through PHWRs, about 5,000 MW through imported reactors and about 2,500 MW through Fast Breeder Reactors, he said.
Talks with vendors
India was in discussion with several foreign nuclear vendors. An important guarantee it was seeking from any vendor was life-time uninterrupted supply of fuel and the right to re-process the spent fuel.
This was important because for delivering a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would need to grow its primary energy supply by at least 3-4 times and electricity supply by 5-7 times, he said.
India was fortunate that it had developed the recycle capabilities, a situation the world should tackle, as global fuel sources were coming under increasing stress, Dr. Kakodkar added.
(Source: The Hindu)
Friday, December 5, 2008
ESKOM NOT IN A POSITION TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR
Eskom announced today its decision not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second nuclear power station.
Eskom terminated the commercial procurement process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project. The two bidders were the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA.
However, South Africa will stay committed to its nuclear power programme in a bid to ease chronic power shortages and diversify the country’s energy sources, a government official said.
“The South African government remains committed to introducing nuclear because we have to deal with our carbon footprint and we have to diversify our energy mix,” Portia Molefe, director general at the Department of Public Enterprises, told reporters.
Eskom said last month that the plan to build a nuclear plant had to be revisited in the light of the economic climate.
It then said the project might have to be postponed as the credit crisis and the downgrading of Eskom’s credit rating had increased the costs of borrowing and would make it difficult for the utility to afford an investment of that magnitude.
Government said it supported the utility’s decision.
“This is just to confirm government’s support for Eskom’s board decision to not proceed with the Nuclear 1 procurement as it is not affordable at this present juncture,” Molefe said.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Final decision about location of Belarus' nuclear power plant to be made in late December, official pledges
A final decision on the location of Belarus' first nuclear power plant will be made in late December, Liliya Dulinets, a departmental chief at the energy ministry, told reporters in Minsk on Thursday.
The government is considering three possible locations for the plant: near the village of Kukshynava between Horki and Shklow, Mahilyow region; in the Astravets district, Hrodna region; and near the village of Chyrvonaya Palyana near Bykhaw, Mahilyow region.
The decision will be taken at a meeting that a special government commission headed by the energy minister will hold on December 22 and 23, according to the official.
"The deadline for the selection of the location was set for the end of 2008," Ms. Dulinets said. "The deadline is not being postponed."
An expert of the International Atomic Energy Agency will visit Belarus next week to give recommendations for the location of the nuclear power plant and assess preparations made in the country for the construction project.
The authorities earlier pledged that they would announce the location this past September.
Belarus plans to start the construction of the nuclear power plant in 2009. The 2,000-MW plant is projected to supply some 15 percent of the country’s electricity needs. One of the two 1000-MW reactors is to be put into operation in 2016 and the other in 2018.
(Source: Naviny.by)
The government is considering three possible locations for the plant: near the village of Kukshynava between Horki and Shklow, Mahilyow region; in the Astravets district, Hrodna region; and near the village of Chyrvonaya Palyana near Bykhaw, Mahilyow region.
The decision will be taken at a meeting that a special government commission headed by the energy minister will hold on December 22 and 23, according to the official.
"The deadline for the selection of the location was set for the end of 2008," Ms. Dulinets said. "The deadline is not being postponed."
An expert of the International Atomic Energy Agency will visit Belarus next week to give recommendations for the location of the nuclear power plant and assess preparations made in the country for the construction project.
The authorities earlier pledged that they would announce the location this past September.
Belarus plans to start the construction of the nuclear power plant in 2009. The 2,000-MW plant is projected to supply some 15 percent of the country’s electricity needs. One of the two 1000-MW reactors is to be put into operation in 2016 and the other in 2018.
(Source: Naviny.by)
IAEA nuclear power personnel training mission to arrive in Belarus in January
The IAEA mission for training personnel for the nuclear power engineering industry will arrive in Belarus in mid-January 2009, Liliya Dulinets, head of the office for international cooperation, personnel training and information support of the Nuclear Power Department of the Belarusian Energy Ministry, told a press conference on December 4, reported Belta.
She noted, the IAEA 2009-2011 technical aid programme includes a project for developing human resources potential and personnel training for Belarus’ nuclear power industry. The project budget exceeds $700,000. Its implementation will start in 2009, said the official.
In her words, the money will be spent on consultative aid for Belarus, on arranging educational seminars, visits to nuclear facilities, perfection of the legal base concerning personnel training.
The next consultations with IAEA experts are supposed to take place on January 14-15. Representatives of the IAEA secretariat will arrive in Belarus. Experienced specialists from Russia and Ukraine have been invited as experts.
Liliya Dulinets remarked, Belarus is implementing a programme for training nuclear power industry personnel. In line with the programme specialists will be trained for building and running the nuclear power plant, performing safety control functions and other functions. There are plans to send a group of Belarusian specialists for training in Russian universities in 2009. By the end of the year a relevant contract will be signed. The group will consist of 24 people. Their education is likely to take place in Obninsk.
(Source: Trend News Agency)
She noted, the IAEA 2009-2011 technical aid programme includes a project for developing human resources potential and personnel training for Belarus’ nuclear power industry. The project budget exceeds $700,000. Its implementation will start in 2009, said the official.
In her words, the money will be spent on consultative aid for Belarus, on arranging educational seminars, visits to nuclear facilities, perfection of the legal base concerning personnel training.
The next consultations with IAEA experts are supposed to take place on January 14-15. Representatives of the IAEA secretariat will arrive in Belarus. Experienced specialists from Russia and Ukraine have been invited as experts.
Liliya Dulinets remarked, Belarus is implementing a programme for training nuclear power industry personnel. In line with the programme specialists will be trained for building and running the nuclear power plant, performing safety control functions and other functions. There are plans to send a group of Belarusian specialists for training in Russian universities in 2009. By the end of the year a relevant contract will be signed. The group will consist of 24 people. Their education is likely to take place in Obninsk.
(Source: Trend News Agency)
China to kick off inland nuclear power projects: state media
Construction of an 8.7 billion dollar nuclear power plant in eastern China is set to begin soon, as part of ambitious plans for more atomic energy in the nation's interior, state press said Thursday.
Work on the 60 billion yuan (8.7 billion dollar) Pengze nuclear plant in eastern China's Jiangxi province will begin, with authorities also approving plants in nearby Hubei and Hunan provinces, the China Daily said.
"As China has taken measures to boost domestic demand, China may speed up the construction of nuclear projects in the next few years," the paper said, referring to Beijing's effort to overcome the global economic downturn.
Earlier, the official Jiangxi Daily said construction of the plant, which will consist of the AP-1000 nuclear reactor produced by the US-based Westinghouse, would start in October.
Westinghouse, which is owned by Japan's Toshiba, last year signed a multi-billion dollar deal for four nuclear reactors with two each in the coastal provinces of Shandong and Zhejiang.
Westinghouse's representative office in Beijing refused to comment on its reported participation in the Jiangxi plant when contacted by AFP Thursday.
The official Caijing Magazine previously reported the China National Nuclear Corp had decided in October to use the AP-1000 as a standard for inland nuclear power projects.
Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Anhui, Henan, Gansu and Jilin provinces have all applied to the central government to build plants, the report said.
China has 11 nuclear reactors in operation, all of which are located in the nation's coastal regions.
According to a published nuclear power development plan, China will need up to 30 more atomic power plants if it expects to realise its target of producing 40 gigawatts of nuclear energy by 2020.
China is seeking to diversify its energy structure away from coal which provides the nation with up to 70 percent of its power needs, but is highly polluting.
(Source: AFP)
Work on the 60 billion yuan (8.7 billion dollar) Pengze nuclear plant in eastern China's Jiangxi province will begin, with authorities also approving plants in nearby Hubei and Hunan provinces, the China Daily said.
"As China has taken measures to boost domestic demand, China may speed up the construction of nuclear projects in the next few years," the paper said, referring to Beijing's effort to overcome the global economic downturn.
Earlier, the official Jiangxi Daily said construction of the plant, which will consist of the AP-1000 nuclear reactor produced by the US-based Westinghouse, would start in October.
Westinghouse, which is owned by Japan's Toshiba, last year signed a multi-billion dollar deal for four nuclear reactors with two each in the coastal provinces of Shandong and Zhejiang.
Westinghouse's representative office in Beijing refused to comment on its reported participation in the Jiangxi plant when contacted by AFP Thursday.
The official Caijing Magazine previously reported the China National Nuclear Corp had decided in October to use the AP-1000 as a standard for inland nuclear power projects.
Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Anhui, Henan, Gansu and Jilin provinces have all applied to the central government to build plants, the report said.
China has 11 nuclear reactors in operation, all of which are located in the nation's coastal regions.
According to a published nuclear power development plan, China will need up to 30 more atomic power plants if it expects to realise its target of producing 40 gigawatts of nuclear energy by 2020.
China is seeking to diversify its energy structure away from coal which provides the nation with up to 70 percent of its power needs, but is highly polluting.
(Source: AFP)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Vilnius frets as EU prepares to cut off power
Here comes the original article on Lithuania from Financial Times mentioned in my previous post.
What one god gives, another takes away. Such is the dry humour with which Lithuanians greeted the imminent closure of the Ignalina nuclear power station, a featureless hulk rising from the snowy badlands of the frontier with Belarus and Latvia.
The god that gave Lithuania the Ignalina plant was the Soviet Union. "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country!" Vladimir Lenin once proclaimed.
The god shutting down Ignalina is the European Union, which, as a condition of Lithuania's admission to the bloc in 2004, insisted on its closure.
To anyone who visited a Soviet factory or office in the 1980s, it appears as if time has stood still at Ignalina, with its shoddy paintwork, bad wiring, missing lights, elaborate security procedures, brusque staff and pungent, disinfected smell.
But as the clock ticks towards the shutdown date of December 31, 2009, the prospect of its closure is being greeted with incomprehension and anxiety in Vilnius, Lithuania's capital.
Ignalina provides 70 per cent of Lithuania's electricity, and when it shuts down the nation will have nowhere to turn for its energy supplies except Russia - the very country that, in its Soviet guise, annexed Lithuania in the 1940s, deported tens of thousands of its people to Siberia, and did not permit the nation's independence until the Soviet Union itself fell apart in 1991.
"We're becoming an energy-isolated island. I'd even call it a Russian monopoly," says Valdas Adamkus, Lithuania's president. "We don't understand the real reason why the EU insisted on closing the Ignalina plant, which is very safe operationally. Finland is building new nuclear power units, and Lithuania is being forced to close something that's not broken. If you ask if it's unfair or not, I don't believe it is fair."
For the European Commission, it is a closed case. Memories of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Soviet Ukraine, the world's worst nuclear disaster, were fresh in the mind when the Commission negotiated EU entry terms for former communist countries in central and eastern Europe. Moreover, energy was cheap in Europe back then.
Soviet-designed nuclear reactors were unwanted and, it seemed, unnecessary. To make matters worse, Ignalina was a Chernobyl-type plant.
But in Ignalina the sense of outrage and injustice is intense. The plant's first reactor was shut in 2004 after 21 years. Sweden forked out millions of euros to upgrade the safety systems of the second reactor, which, according to senior staff, could carry on for another 20 years if the appropriate maintenance work were done in 2012.
"The reactor is 1.5 times more powerful than Chernobyl and 100 times safer," says Mikhail Demchenko, deputy head of the Lithuanian state nuclear power inspectorate.
Adding to the bitterness is the fact that 80 per cent of Ignalina's 3,000 staff are ethnic Russians. In fact, Ignalina has the highest density of ethnic Russians anywhere in Lithuania, of whose 3.6m people only 6.3 per cent are Russian.
When the plant closes next year, up to 2,000 staff will lose their jobs. Some will stay to decommission the two reactors, although that may be easier said than done. At present, there are not enough casks to store the spent nuclear fuel.
"Originally, in the Soviet period, it was planned to put the spent fuel somewhere in Siberia. Now it is a problem for Lithuania," says one Ignalina manager.
For the Russians facing redundancy, employment prospects are bleak. Many do not speak fluent Lithuanian, and the country is hurtling into recession.
Chief defender of the workers at Ignalina is Viktor Shevaldin, an ethnic Russian and the plant's director-general for the past 17 years. Animated, silver-haired, tie knotted loosely below unbuttoned collar, Mr Shevaldin tells it straight, as only a Russian from the Soviet era can: "If they let me do the negotiating in Brussels, this plant would stay open. But one side won't take me there, and the other side doesn't want me there."
Mr Shevaldin says Russia still operates 11 reactors like those at Ignalina and all have been successfully modernised. Ignalina's operators, he says, also still co-operate closely with Russians on safety issues.
But Mr Shevaldin is no representative of Russian interests in disguise. "I once had an offer to leave here to manage a Russian plant. I refused. Ya - litovsky patriot! " he declares in Russian ("I am a Lithuanian patriot!").
(Source: Financial Times)
What one god gives, another takes away. Such is the dry humour with which Lithuanians greeted the imminent closure of the Ignalina nuclear power station, a featureless hulk rising from the snowy badlands of the frontier with Belarus and Latvia.
The god that gave Lithuania the Ignalina plant was the Soviet Union. "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country!" Vladimir Lenin once proclaimed.
The god shutting down Ignalina is the European Union, which, as a condition of Lithuania's admission to the bloc in 2004, insisted on its closure.
To anyone who visited a Soviet factory or office in the 1980s, it appears as if time has stood still at Ignalina, with its shoddy paintwork, bad wiring, missing lights, elaborate security procedures, brusque staff and pungent, disinfected smell.
But as the clock ticks towards the shutdown date of December 31, 2009, the prospect of its closure is being greeted with incomprehension and anxiety in Vilnius, Lithuania's capital.
Ignalina provides 70 per cent of Lithuania's electricity, and when it shuts down the nation will have nowhere to turn for its energy supplies except Russia - the very country that, in its Soviet guise, annexed Lithuania in the 1940s, deported tens of thousands of its people to Siberia, and did not permit the nation's independence until the Soviet Union itself fell apart in 1991.
"We're becoming an energy-isolated island. I'd even call it a Russian monopoly," says Valdas Adamkus, Lithuania's president. "We don't understand the real reason why the EU insisted on closing the Ignalina plant, which is very safe operationally. Finland is building new nuclear power units, and Lithuania is being forced to close something that's not broken. If you ask if it's unfair or not, I don't believe it is fair."
For the European Commission, it is a closed case. Memories of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Soviet Ukraine, the world's worst nuclear disaster, were fresh in the mind when the Commission negotiated EU entry terms for former communist countries in central and eastern Europe. Moreover, energy was cheap in Europe back then.
Soviet-designed nuclear reactors were unwanted and, it seemed, unnecessary. To make matters worse, Ignalina was a Chernobyl-type plant.
But in Ignalina the sense of outrage and injustice is intense. The plant's first reactor was shut in 2004 after 21 years. Sweden forked out millions of euros to upgrade the safety systems of the second reactor, which, according to senior staff, could carry on for another 20 years if the appropriate maintenance work were done in 2012.
"The reactor is 1.5 times more powerful than Chernobyl and 100 times safer," says Mikhail Demchenko, deputy head of the Lithuanian state nuclear power inspectorate.
Adding to the bitterness is the fact that 80 per cent of Ignalina's 3,000 staff are ethnic Russians. In fact, Ignalina has the highest density of ethnic Russians anywhere in Lithuania, of whose 3.6m people only 6.3 per cent are Russian.
When the plant closes next year, up to 2,000 staff will lose their jobs. Some will stay to decommission the two reactors, although that may be easier said than done. At present, there are not enough casks to store the spent nuclear fuel.
"Originally, in the Soviet period, it was planned to put the spent fuel somewhere in Siberia. Now it is a problem for Lithuania," says one Ignalina manager.
For the Russians facing redundancy, employment prospects are bleak. Many do not speak fluent Lithuanian, and the country is hurtling into recession.
Chief defender of the workers at Ignalina is Viktor Shevaldin, an ethnic Russian and the plant's director-general for the past 17 years. Animated, silver-haired, tie knotted loosely below unbuttoned collar, Mr Shevaldin tells it straight, as only a Russian from the Soviet era can: "If they let me do the negotiating in Brussels, this plant would stay open. But one side won't take me there, and the other side doesn't want me there."
Mr Shevaldin says Russia still operates 11 reactors like those at Ignalina and all have been successfully modernised. Ignalina's operators, he says, also still co-operate closely with Russians on safety issues.
But Mr Shevaldin is no representative of Russian interests in disguise. "I once had an offer to leave here to manage a Russian plant. I refused. Ya - litovsky patriot! " he declares in Russian ("I am a Lithuanian patriot!").
(Source: Financial Times)
Financial Times voices Lithuania’s concern over electricity and Russia
Lithuania is worried about the approaching term for closing the Ignalina nuclear power plant and its President Valdas Adamkus considers such requirement of the European Union (EU) to be unfair, the well-known British daily The Financial Times writes on Tuesday.
"Ignalina provides 70% of Lithuania"s electricity, and when it shuts down the nation will have nowhere to turn for its energy supplies except Russia – the very country that, in its Soviet guise, annexed Lithuania in the 1940s, deported tens of thousands of its people to Siberia, and did not permit the nation"s independence until the Soviet Union itself fell apart in 1991," The Financial Times noted in its website, writes ELTA.
Tony Barber, author of the article, quotes President Adamkus, who states seeing no reason for decommissioning the plant.
"We"re becoming an energy-isolated island. I"d even call it a Russian monopoly. We don"t understand the real reason why the EU insisted on closing the Ignalina plant, which is very safe operationally. Finland is building new nuclear power units, and Lithuania is being forced to close something that"s not broken. If you ask if it"s unfair or not, I don"t believe it is fair," The Financial Times quoted Adamkus.
The daily also pays attention to the fact that a lot of employees, the majority of whom are ethnic Russians, will lose their jobs after closing the Ignalina nuclear power plant.
"Chief defender of the workers at Ignalina is Viktor Shevaldin, an ethnic Russian and the plant"s director-general for the past 17 years. Animated, silver-haired, tie knotted loosely below unbuttoned collar, Mr Shevaldin tells it straight, as only a Russian from the Soviet era can: "If they let me do the negotiating in Brussels, this plant would stay open. But one side won"t take me there, and the other side doesn"t want me there," The Financial Times writes.
"But Mr Shevaldin is no representative of Russian interests in disguise: "I once had an offer to leave here to manage a Russian plant. I refused. Ya – litovsky patriot!" he declares in Russian ("I am a Lithuanian patriot!")," the daily quoted Shevaldin.
(Source: The Baltic Course)
"Ignalina provides 70% of Lithuania"s electricity, and when it shuts down the nation will have nowhere to turn for its energy supplies except Russia – the very country that, in its Soviet guise, annexed Lithuania in the 1940s, deported tens of thousands of its people to Siberia, and did not permit the nation"s independence until the Soviet Union itself fell apart in 1991," The Financial Times noted in its website, writes ELTA.
Tony Barber, author of the article, quotes President Adamkus, who states seeing no reason for decommissioning the plant.
"We"re becoming an energy-isolated island. I"d even call it a Russian monopoly. We don"t understand the real reason why the EU insisted on closing the Ignalina plant, which is very safe operationally. Finland is building new nuclear power units, and Lithuania is being forced to close something that"s not broken. If you ask if it"s unfair or not, I don"t believe it is fair," The Financial Times quoted Adamkus.
The daily also pays attention to the fact that a lot of employees, the majority of whom are ethnic Russians, will lose their jobs after closing the Ignalina nuclear power plant.
"Chief defender of the workers at Ignalina is Viktor Shevaldin, an ethnic Russian and the plant"s director-general for the past 17 years. Animated, silver-haired, tie knotted loosely below unbuttoned collar, Mr Shevaldin tells it straight, as only a Russian from the Soviet era can: "If they let me do the negotiating in Brussels, this plant would stay open. But one side won"t take me there, and the other side doesn"t want me there," The Financial Times writes.
"But Mr Shevaldin is no representative of Russian interests in disguise: "I once had an offer to leave here to manage a Russian plant. I refused. Ya – litovsky patriot!" he declares in Russian ("I am a Lithuanian patriot!")," the daily quoted Shevaldin.
(Source: The Baltic Course)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
