What the nuclear revival is really all about - market share...

[kristopher]

Russia plans on controlling 1/4 of world nuclear reactor market
Friday, 19 Mar 2010


Despite having incurred the world’s worst nuclear reactor meltdown in history, Russia appears ready to improve and strengthen their reliance on nuclear power. According to sources, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wants to boost his country’s nuclear power market to the point where his country will account for one quarter of the world’s nuclear reactor market.

On Thursday, Putin stated that his country cannot afford to control less than a 25% market share of the global market of nuclear plants. While the Russian Prime Minister did not give a timetable for obtaining the 25% goal, he appears to be ready to begin the project immediately. Russia plans to invest at least $6 billion this year alone on their nuclear energy project.

Presently, Russia accounts for a 20% share of the global nuclear reactor market. In the nuclear sector, Russia competes widely with both the United States and France. To regain some of their market share in Europe and Asia, Russia is considering an alliance with Siemens.

Putin made his comments at the new Volgodonsk nuclear power plant. This power plant was the first plant built in Russia since the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. 25 years later, it now appears that the Russian public is ready to accept the construction of new power plants....


http://www.techjackal.net/interesting-stuff/2010/03/19/russia-plans-on-controlling-14-of-world-nuclear-reactor-market/

[Gman2]

1. Russia is going to Reagan us.

They are cranking up the nucular heat, so that we are spinning our wheels on defense, leading to their leader standing at the double wall on our south border, demanding we tear down that wall.

[Statistical]

2. The reality is most of the world is pro-nuclear.

Even Europe is realizing the CO2 targets are not possible without at least some nuclear.

So the question is do we want another 100+ poorly designed Russian reactors around the globe or GenIII+ Western designs with an emphasis on passive safety, multiple redundancies, and defense ind depth?

Most of the world isn't rabid anti-nuclear like you are. Reactors will be built. The anti-nuclear nuts in this country are going to hand marketshare to Russian the only ones of the planet who should be banned from every building another plant again.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNadir]

4. Really? Nobel Laureates Glenn Seaborg and Hans Bethe were right wing?

That is a surprise.

I suppose that in your wonderful mind, Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fischer are not right wing, even though they spend their days on their knees before that wonderful liberal anti-fascist leader Vladmir Putin, selling his gas.

You ought to look in the scientific literature some time kiddie, something other than the two papers you link here every other day.

Apparently the world doesn't give a rat's ass about the fantasies of light-weight bloggers who hear only what they want to hear.

Oh, and if you think anti-nuke babble and chanting looks any better presented in a verse format, you're even more oblivious than we thought.

The anti-nukes like to say that I'm arrogant, and of course, I am, since I don't suffer stupidity well. But they ought to look in the mirror when they pretend to give a rat's ass about liberal causes, like the environment, like poverty and like justice.

They seem to think that a McMansion with a bunch of electtronic waste pasted to the roof is about justice. Not at all. It's about being poseurs and nothing else.

There are zero people in impoverished areas of the country who can afford a swell solar rig on their McMansion roofs.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

Have a nice consumerist oblivious evening.

[NNadir]

5. Not every Russian reactor was an RBMK.

The Russians produced some very interesting designs.

I have always been intrigued by the Pb/Bi eutectic fast reactor, for instance.

It had some drawbacks to be sure, but I note that the Pb/Bi reactor has been under evaluation as a Gen IV concept.

There is not a single VVER in the world that is as dangerous as a coal plant.

Even the remaining RBMK's have not malfunctioned again, now that people realize that you do not do experiments involving deliberate disabling of safety systems on reactors with positive void coefficients.

Granted, it was a poor design, the RBMK, but the operating history of RBMK's, including the one that blew up, have not been as disasterous as the last ten years of coal operations, even in Ukraine.

[kristopher]

7. Most of the world is NOT "pro-nuclear"

fossil fuels still reign supreme, and the forecast for the next 20 years on a global basis is that renewables and nuclear will both increase the amount of power actually delivered by about same amount according to a 2009 EIA estimate.

I don't buy that however.

Given that
-the need for new generation is acute, and
-nuclear power takes a long time to build while
-renewable energy is rapidly and easily deployed,
-nuclear power's cost is rising while
-renewable energy's costs are declining,
-nuclear power's associated high external costs,
-renewable energy's minimal external costs,
-nuclear power's high risk (including proliferation),
-renewable energy's low risk,
I have trouble seeing how renewable energy isn't destined to be the over-riding source of energy for this planet.


The only question is how much of the public's money will be diverted by the great economic and political power that has accrued to those controlling centralized energy production such as fossil fuels and nuclear power?



For those interested in reading more detail on the same arguments you use to promote nuclear power, I recommend these website:

http://www.heritage.org/

sample: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/01/Nuclear-power-is-true-green-energy Nuclear Power is True 'Green' Energy)



Or this one that they've apparently scrubbed from their website: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:zC2LuXocecUJ:www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm+Spencer+Critics+of+Nuclear+Power%27s+Costs+Miss+the+Point&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Critics of Nuclear Power's Costs Miss the Point
by Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris
WebMemo #1961

Carbon-capping legislation and recent studies<1> that conclude that a massive build-up of nuclear power is needed to minimize the negative economic impact of CO2 caps have spurred several high-profile articles on the costs of nuclear energy.<2> One such article notes that estimated construction costs for nuclear power plants and the overall costs of nuclear power have increased significantly since 2000 and espouses wind power, solar power, and energy efficiency as alternatives to new nuclear plants.

What these articles do not recognize is that energy prices are increasing broadly. When considered properly, nuclear power is the only available technology that is adequate, affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally clean. If the nation wants to limit CO2 emissions, then it must turn to nuclear power...

- Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

Or how about the American Enterprise Institute?
http://www.aei.org/googleSearch?query=nuclear+power&start=0&sortBy=relevance

[Statistical]

8. Then why are more countries building reactors or planning to build reactors?

Poland announces intent to build first reactor by 2020.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EH43200.htm

Russia to build 12 new reactors in India
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/13/2844873.htm

Turkey signs nuclear energy agreement with South Korea
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKANK00279020100310

Israel intends to build civilian nuclear power plants
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/middleeast/10nukes.html

[kristopher]

9. How does limited marketing success with a few governments = "most of the world is pro-nuclear"

Answer, it doesn't. It only means that the mostly RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS in those countries are attracted to the way nuclear power rewards a small group of elites at the expense of many.

[Statistical]

11. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and France have RIGHT WING govts?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

12. HAHAHA

[kristopher]

13. Yet more dishonesty? You listed Poland, Russia, India, Turkey and Israel.

As your list of governments that you felt proved your point.

For more detailed pro-nuclear information, I'd recommend readers to:

http://www.aie.org
http://www.heritage.org

[bananas]

10. We've been through this before: "Nixon announced...a plan to build 1,000 nuclear stations..."

Lots of reactors ordered, then lots of reactors cancelled.
"In 1974, President Nixon announced Project Independence – a plan to build 1,000 nuclear stations. ..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/the-bumpy-road-to-nuclear-energy

The bumpy road to nuclear energy

Of the 182 construction permits granted by government commissions, 50 were abandoned in construction with billions in investment lost and 28 were closed before their 40-year licenses expired.



By Mark Clayton, Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor / August 13, 2009


In 1974, President Nixon announced Project Independence – a plan to build 1,000 nuclear stations. But of the 253 reactors eventually ordered by the US electric industry, 71 were canceled before construction began, according to a tally by the antinuclear group Beyond Nuclear.

Of the 182 construction permits granted by government commissions, 50 were abandoned in construction with billions in investment lost and 28 were closed before their 40-year licenses expired – including the Three Mile Island plant’s Unit 2.

Gary McCool knows all about the financial pitfalls of nuclear power. Thirty years ago the Plymouth State College reference librarian warned managers at his tiny New Hampshire Electric Cooperative that its plan to purchase 2 percent of the new Seabrook nuclear power plant’s generating output when it was completed could push the coop into bankruptcy – or perhaps produce the highest electric rates in the nation.

It turned out to be both. Today he’s still paying the price of nuclear power – even though his coop no longer purchases any. There on his monthly bill is a $6.06 charge for “stranded costs” – the cost of paying off the coop’s adventure into Seabrook.

<snip>

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/nuclear-power-s-new-debate-cost

Nuclear power’s new debate: cost

Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.



<snip>

[joshcryer]

6. I love links to obscure blogs with no real citations and innuendo.