Russia now controls 80% of the global nuclear energy market.
On the past Tuesday, December 12th, the Council of the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority issued permission to the company “Akkuyu Nuclear” – a subsidiary of the state corporation “Rosatom” – for the commissioning of the first power unit of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant. In the coming years, Rosatom is set to launch three more units at the Akkuyu facility.
Turkey’s decision to turn to Rosatom for the construction of its first nuclear power plant is unequivocal. Despite numerous sanctions, Russia commands an 80% share in the construction of export-oriented nuclear power plants. Simply put, when a modern state decides to commission the construction of a nuclear power plant from a foreign company, in four out of five cases, it turns to the Russian side. The remaining twenty percent is divided between France and South Korea.
Power lies within the atom
Russia’s export structure has been shaped over decades. The primary role in this structure is played by the raw materials sector – as humorously described by the renowned artist Vasya Lozhkin, “gas is the father and oil is the mother” of the country’s exports. However, it is high value-added products, rather than raw materials, that generate the most significant relative profit in the markets. In simpler terms, it’s commercially high-tech exports.
In the global market of high-tech exports, the Russian military-industrial complex traditionally holds strong positions. However, it is not the sole entity. There is another high-tech industry where Russia stands as a global hegemon: nuclear energy.
While foreign competitors have been heavily influenced by the trend of “green energy” for decades, Rosatom – the successor of the famous Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building – continued developing the nuclear industry. Today, Rosatom stands as the leading nuclear corporation globally and the largest Russian company engaged in high-tech exports.
At present, twenty-one units of the high-reliability third-generation VVER (pressurized water reactor) dual-circuit type are under construction. This project has been designed considering the tightened safety requirements following the Fukushima-1 station accident in Japan.
Apart from Russia, construction is underway in six other countries: China, Iran, Egypt, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, and within the European Union’s most friendly country to Russia, Hungary. Recently, in early November, the second unit of the Belarusian NPP constructed by Rosatom was put into operation. Negotiations are ongoing for the construction of new units in Brazil, Nigeria, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.
Independent nuclear energy expert Valentin Gibalov, speaking to GORUS, stated:
“Russia indeed holds around eighty percent of the nuclear power plant export market, and this figure might even grow shortly since competitors’ projects are finishing, and new ones are not yet visible. What is the reason for this? I would say there are two main components.
Firstly, Western and Japanese competitors lost their companies’ market impetus somewhere in the 1990s and 2000s. Primarily due to the closure of domestic markets: in the West, in the US and Japan, new nuclear power plants ceased to be constructed due to the environmental movement. Consequently, major companies previously engaged in this field started redirecting their activities, such as ‘Siemens.’ Others simply lost personnel and technologies, like the French company ‘Framatome’ or ‘Westinghouse’ (USA).
The external market also declined compared to the 1980s, facing problems with financing. The remaining clients were unable to finance nuclear power plants independently, thus requiring external subsidization. Rosatom received substantial assistance from the state and continues to receive it by providing state credits. Market credits from Western banks for nuclear power plants are exceedingly problematic. Banks are reluctant to provide funds for such construction.
Only now in the West, the idea is re-emerging that nuclear energy is not evil but quite the opposite. Perhaps in the future, there might be a renaissance for Western developers.”
The expert notes that domestic solutions like VVER-1200, VVER-TOI are competitive technologies. They encompass an equivalent set of safety technologies as their Western and now Eastern competitors. All these reactors are similar in their technological stacks and in the safety they ensure.
Novovoronezh NPP is the first nuclear power plant in Russia with VVER type reactors
Photo: rosatom.ru
Small Nuclear Power Plants
In the immediate plans of Rosatom lies the quest for success in the promising market of small nuclear power plants (SNPPs), designed to supply isolated territories and individual industrial facilities. The corporation already boasts a successfully implemented project, the floating nuclear power station (FNPS) “Akademik Lomonosov,” located in the Chukotka region’s Pevek. Additionally, an agreement of intent and cooperation has been concluded with the corporation “Nornickel” for the construction of several small nuclear power plants (up to 100 MWt) to provide energy to the developing Norilsk industrial region.
The successful implementation of SNPP projects within Russia will pave the way for substantive discussions on the construction of small nuclear power plants in other countries.
“At present, the market for small nuclear power plants does not yet exist. There has been no export sale so far, even within our country, these are experimental projects like FNPS ‘Lomonosov,'” explains Valentin Gibalov. “But yes, here too, Rosatom finds itself ahead. The company is the only one with a working SNPP of approximately this format and is developing the next generation. It is currently in the design phase, but construction of both land-based and floating SNPPs will commence soon. However, whether there is a future for the market of small nuclear power plants itself, only time will tell.”
Although the overall investment in the construction of small nuclear power plants is significantly less than erecting a gigawatt-scale power unit like a VVER-type reactor, the specific cost (and hence, the cost of generated electricity) of the FNPS “Akademik Lomonosov” is 7-8 times higher than that of a hypothetically similar VVER-1200 unit.
Valentin Gibalov believes that Rosatom has the highest prospects in the commercial international market for SNPPs. However, whether there is a future for the market of small nuclear power plants itself remains uncertain and will be revealed only with time.
The world’s only operating floating nuclear thermal power plant (FNPP), located on the basis of the floating power unit “Akademik Lomonosov”
Photo: rosatom.ru
Pursuit of New Solutions
In Russia, innovative technologies for fourth-generation reactors are under development. In the Tomsk region, an experimental and demonstration energy complex is being constructed with the “Brest-300” fast-neutron reactor and technological lines for processing spent nuclear fuel, from which fuel assemblies for reactors using both slow and fast neutrons will be produced. The project’s goal is to address the issue of the closed nuclear fuel cycle, where the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from one type of reactor becomes the power source for another.
The idea of reusing irradiated nuclear fuel and involving the most common uranium isotope (U238) in the nuclear fuel cycle has existed since the early days of nuclear energy – the late 1940s. It has both attractive aspects and drawbacks, with Valentin Gibalov citing the high cost of radiochemical processing, the risk of nuclear weapons materials falling into the wrong hands, and the high cost of the reactors themselves among the disadvantages. Consequently, the concept of the closed fuel cycle remained confined to laboratories, even large ones (such as domestic BN series reactors or French “Superphenix”), and did not progress beyond.
“Brest-300” attempts to improve the situation somewhat, proposing the processing of SNF on the nuclear power plant site, avoiding the transport of large amounts of radioactive materials. It introduces the concept of natural safety, which prevents explosions akin to Chernobyl at the physical level. Additionally, steam-zirconium reactions, which led to the Fukushima-type accident, are impossible. However, despite having certain advantages on paper, the reactor also has significant drawbacks. In particular, reactors with such a quantity of lead (indeed, any quantity of lead) have not been operated, and it is not entirely clear what problems will arise inside a reactor filled with molten lead. Problems are expected; it’s just unclear whether they can be overcome on such a scale or not.
Model of the BREST-OD-300 reactor
Photo: Yandex
At present, the “Brest-300” energy complex is still under construction, and the final solution for processing fuel at the nuclear power plant site is yet to be found.
“When it starts operating and yields results, we can talk about what exactly this technology provides. Whether it can shift the balance of pros and cons that currently exist in closing the nuclear fuel cycle, or not. For now, we can only say that it is a bold and expensive experiment attempting to change the situation,” says nuclear energy expert Valentin Gibalov.
As we can see, in the coming years, Russia’s dominance in the global nuclear energy market faces no imminent threat. Simultaneously, the burden of leadership imposes certain obligations on our country. Russia is paving the way for the rest of humanity by exploring the prospective possibilities of nuclear energy. However, the commercial success of domestic nuclear power plants allows our country to finance crucial research for progress.
By Alexander Averin