Having started the NPP construction, Belarus flew big


The authorities have relied on expensive and largely outdated technology to the detriment of the development of new, promising and environment-friendly and cheaper, writes comments in the Internet newspaper naviny.by Yuri Voronezh.

January 1 of Germany’s electricity for the first time at 95% provided by renewable sources. This Christmas the news went unnoticed on the background of long holidays. Deutsche Welle States that “the full transition 83 million of the country for “green electricity” lasted, of course, only a few hours. Then the German power industry is back to its usual condition”.

This symbolic record was made possible thanks to the combination of strong winds, bright sun and reduce the consumption of electricity.

A “normal state” energy in Germany today is almost vertical increase in the share of renewable energy sources (RES). Wind, biomass, sun and hydro power plants provide a third of electricity for the country.

At the same time in 2022 in Germany will be closed the last nuclear power plant. Really, what’s the point in the reactor, if in December 2017, according to the International economic forum for renewable energy sources, only wind turbines was received in two times more electricity (14.6 billion kWh) than nuclear power plants (7.2 billion kWh).

Germany is not a small country, and the flagship of the European Union. Germany’s GDP is one-fifth of the GDP of the entire EU. The leading economy of Europe phasing out nuclear energy, replacing it with renewable. And we are accustomed to intelligent conversation scientists, public figures and the like as analysts in this field who argue that wind, sun and bioenergy is an insignificant whim of every fanatical green and around them.

In recent years, we are persistently told that the construction of its own nuclear power plant and its subsequent operation will raise to unprecedented heights the level of technology in all sectors of the economy. Something here not so!

Try to understand.

As is the case in other countries?

The share of electricity generation by nuclear power plants dropped to the psychologically significant value. In three dozen countries nuclear plants in total produce slightly more than 10% of the world electricity. More than half of the total nuclear energy produced by three countries — the US, France and China. Over the past two decades, the share of nuclear energy decreased almost two times.

USA and France are in no hurry to build new nuclear power plants. In the United States after more than thirty years of pause launched from scratch in just four of the nuclear project, the commercial success of which threatens the local “shale revolution”, and in France for ten years built a single new nuclear power plant — “Haubourdin-3”.

Given that the age of most reactors is approaching 40 years, it is obvious that nuclear energy is not progressing and in the countries-leaders.

China is, of course, standing here alone, carrying out the construction of 19 reactors. But it is not so simple. In the development of renewable sources of energy today, China is investing five times more than in nuclear power. By 2020, the industry will be invested a staggering $ 360 billion.

Russia today can boast of progress in the nuclear field. “The world market for construction of new nuclear power plants is reduced, the possibility of building new large nuclear power plants abroad almost exhausted,” — this at a forum “tekhnoprom-2017” in Novosibirsk said Deputy General Director of “Rosatom” Vyacheslav Pershukov.

Significant is the refusal to continue the construction of the Baltic NPP in Kaliningrad.

At the us-Japanese nuclear scientists fared even worse. One of the main builders of nuclear power plants in the world Westinghouse, owned by Japan’s Toshiba, have declared bankruptcy. Toshiba has received billions of dollars in losses in connection with the activities of Westinghouse Electric.

Another nuclear leader of the French AREVA-Siemens — stumbled on your unfinished Finnish Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant construction costs which have increased several times since 2005. “Construction of the century” can be frozen due to both financial and technical reasons. At the conclusion of many experts, in the last few years, the company has become a generator of losses.

We live in Europe. Here today 15 countries own nuclear power plants, except for the countries of the former USSR. Of the 10 countries producing a total of about 80% of the European GDP in the two nuclear power stations there is not expected. Is Poland and Italy.

In six countries there are programs shutdown nuclear power plants. Forever they will be closed in the period from 2022 2034 years. Decisions are made by governments, parliaments and citizens in referendums. Even in densely sitting on a nuclear needle will reduce the share of nuclear power from the current 73% to 50% by 2025. And Austria all went to drastic measures, banning the import of electricity produced at nuclear power plants.

Among the most resistant major users of nuclear energy remains the UK. Began after almost chetvertichnogo break the construction of NPP Hinkley Point C is called the most expensive nuclear project ever realizovyvaetsja in the world.

But in this country, investment in renewable energy is growing at a fast pace, which allowed to increase the share of produce “clean” power to a quarter. In 2016, the UK was the European leader in investment in renewable energy for the third consecutive year, increasing it to 26 billion dollars, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

There are in Europe a few small countries using nuclear power and not intending in the near future to close them. As a rule, the countries experiencing difficulties in the development of their generating capacity. We deliberately do not consider their position, as they are not sources of advanced technologies in the energy sector, but in pure form their recipients.

Put on zero

Thus, the development of the energy events in the world in General and Europe in particular, casts doubt on the correctness of the choice in favor of nuclear energy in our poor country.

We see that the developed countries that are the source of most new technologies, curtail the nuclear program to zero or reduce the atomic share in the total amount of energy produced. If this is invested huge funds in the development of renewable energy.

We seem to have relied on very expensive and largely outdated technology to the detriment of the development of new, promising, high-tech and, importantly, more environmentally friendly and cheap.

There may be some ideas of an economic nature, which promise a lot of profit to our state and to every Belarusian? Also, it does not. It is not only 10-billion loan and interest thereon will form the basis of the costs of construction and operation of the NPP.

Add to this the cost of construction or conversion of reserve facilities and new transmission lines to build a powerful nuclear plant in the existing power grid is impossible. And will the costs of very expensive waste management, radiation monitoring of the area, the protection zone of the station, including air, protection during transportation of fuel and waste, insurance in case of radiation (God forbid) of an accident.

By the way, the cost of processing one kilogram of spent fuel, is approaching one thousand dollars. And in two reactors of the NPP such pounds will be almost two hundred thousand. Consider!

Considerable and customary for such a large production the cost of staff wages, repairs and support equipment in working condition, the research and development work, depreciation, and fuel.

Fuel for nuclear power plants will be exclusive — only from the Russian Corporation TVEL. Another to buy as is prohibited by the contract, and the technological characteristics of the reactor. This is the question about energy independence.

And most importantly — the cost of a stop exposure and dismantling of the spent nuclear power plant life, which is today already half the cost of construction. And the cost increases as the tightening of environmental requirements.

Of course, the burden of these costs we are not noticeable, but immediate descendants, I am sure, will remember us a kind word too, raking the radioactive waste.

To sell electricity to any of the neighbors, as it turned out, did not succeed. But the production was built as export-oriented. The internal user will not be able to digest additional 14-16 billion kW h

High-ranking officials obviously got excited when he said that the possible transfer of electricity to all types of transport, heating and industries where hydrocarbons instead use electricity, forgetting the fact that this large-scale reconstruction will require huge funds.

Thus, it seems that speaking in plain language, we flew. And…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here