Follow this blog:
RSS

Russia banks on Vietnamese nuclear

By | February 25, 2013, 5:22 AM PST

Keeping the peace. Ninh Thuan province has the nicknames "serenity" and "peace." A Russian nuclear power station will help sustain its economy starting in 2020.

While the West hems and haws over nuclear power, much of the world is getting on with it as a form of steady low carbon energy. The latest example: Russia’s VTB Bank has offered a $1 billion loan to help build Vietnam’s first ever nuclear reactors.

VTB would provide the funds to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation which is scheduled to start construction in 2014, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reports.

“We are ready to support Rosenergoatom (part of Rosatom), which is taking part in the construction there,” said VTB management board member Valery Lukyanenko. “We said a week ago we are ready to allocate around $1 billion.”

The plant in the Ninh Thuan coastal province will draw cooling water from the South China Sea.

Rosatom expects to start construction in 2014 of two 1.2 gigawatt reactors using the Russian VVER design, which is a conventional solid uranium-fueled, water-cooled technology. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) says that Rosatom’s Atomstroyexport division will oversee the project.

The Ninh Thuan nuclear power plant in southern Vietnam would cost a total of $10 billion and start operations in 2020, RIA says. It would be followed by other VVERs and by several Japanese-built reactors, according to the WNA. The country would then have a total of 15 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2030, the RIA article states.

According to WNA projections, nuclear will meet about 8 percent of Vietnam’s electricity demand by 2030, growing to as much as 25 percent by 2050.

In 2030, coal’s contribution will be as high as 56 percent, the WNA says. That echoes a call by the World Bank to allow poor countries to burn coal to help lift them economically. Although Vietnam’s “poverty headcount” has shrunk significantly over the last two decades to what the World Bank says is now about 20 percent, the financial institution is concerned over prevailing challenges, including poverty among ethnic minorities.

Nuclear power plants require significant upfront capital - although innovative alternative reactors and small modular reactors could lower the upfront cost. Once running, they can provide decades of steady low carbon power, for as many as 60 years under some schemes.

Nuclear is a significant part of future power plans in China, Russia and India. It is also poised to make a comeback in Japan, which has shut down all but two of its reactors following meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011. The absence of nuclear power has presented economic difficulties.

Photo from Nguyen Thanh Quang via Wikimedia.

A sampling of  atom splitters on SmartPlanet:

For a longer list click here

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Vietnam reactors
I'm disappointed to see the Russians building a conventional reactor in Vietnam. With all the talk about thorium reactors it was my hopes that the Russians would not stick with the same old technology, that they would take this opportunity to advance to a safer reactor technology, for a technology where more fuel resource is available. I hope that the Japanese are more interested in going the thorium reactor route. Someone needs to get on with it and get the basics down for construction and operation. We will all need more energy resources in the future and we need it to be safer and cleaner than the same-old same-old. We don't need more Chernobyl s, Three Mile Islands, Fukushima s etc. We don't need them built on fault lines or at the edge of the ocean susceptible to tsunamis, or in the middle of areas wracked by civil unrest. Get it together folks.
Posted by radiodog4@...
25th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Vietnam Reactors
As someone who was a reactor operator for over 20 years in the USN, reactors can be safe. But the old Soviets took shortcuts and used bad technology at the time. We had our bad things too. The Navy has one of the worst episodes, but that was in the early 50's. But we have an excellent record after the 50's: after we knew better.. TMI was a big mistake in operator error. I know because my best friend in the Navy worked there, was not on duty, and the person that made the mistake did not go through the grueling program the Navy put us through. Our problems in civilian reactor plants came from "lowest bid wins." But we have really not had the problems the Soviets have had, on land and at sea. Especially at sea. The basic premise of the reactor in Vietnam is flawed. It is proven to be flawed. I am not surprised Vietnam went with the Russians. We have not built a nuclear power plant in years. It is a shame. Yes, waste is a serious problem. But, until we master fusion, all energy sources have a dark side. Air pollution, changing the natural flow of rivers, undermining our land under towns and cities, national security,and a list so long I can't at my age recite. It is a bad choice for a design, but where else do they go?
Posted by dwhite0849
25th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Something whispers "Three Mile Island"....
And we have had lots of other disasters, here are just a few:
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Posted by Dukhalion
26th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
And?
How about providing an authoritative source for the death toll of each, along with a similar accounting, in deaths per Terawatt-hour produced, of all other sources of electrical generation?

If you don't have one, I do:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Posted by Atomikrabbit
27th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
VVER not RBMK
Again, these are not the old Soviet RBMKs made infamous by Chernobyl 4, but modern VVER PWRs similar in many ways to AP-1000s being built in China and the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Vietnam
Posted by Atomikrabbit
27th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
VVER = AP-1000
"I'm disappointed to see the Russians building a conventional reactor in Vietnam."

These are VVER-1000s, essentially the same Gen III PWRs as AP-1000s.

"With all the talk about thorium reactors it was my hopes that the Russians would not stick with the same old technology, that they would take this opportunity to advance to a safer reactor technology, for a technology where more fuel resource is available. I hope that the Japanese are more interested in going the thorium reactor route."

Unless someone starts a Manhattan Project for LFTR, they are at least 20 years in the future. Developing nations need massive quantities of emission-free generation now.

"we need it to be safer and cleaner than the same-old same-old. We don't need more Chernobyl s, Three Mile Islands, Fukushima s etc."

Yes - total death toll in 60 years = 56, all in the former Soviet Union. By far the best record per megawatt of any generation source, bar none.
Posted by Atomikrabbit
Updated - 27th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
While the West hems and haws over nuclear power
heming and hawing over something as dangerous (forever) and expensive seems pretty wise; unless you are Mark Halper, who appears to be a paid mouthpiece for Nuclear.
Smartplanet, are you listening? Give this guy a long vacation.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
25th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Nuclear dangerous?
"Nuclear is dangerous!"
Guess what? So is life!
The rate of death is 100%
Perhaps someone can provide us with a perfect energy source?
No? I didn't think so.
Every energy source has its dangers!
To my mind, nuclear holds out the promise of being one of the safest (for its energy output) forms of energy production we currrently have!
Posted by rschmidt@...
26th Feb
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!