Russia to complete first unit of nuclear power plant in Türkiye in 2024
The Akkuyu facility is expected to reduce the cost of power generation and result in lower prices for consumers
.
One of Russia’s major energy projects in Türkiye, the Akkuyu nuclear power plant, will become operational next year, Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar told the Sabah newspaper on Tuesday.
The $20-billion project, built in partnership with the Russian state nuclear giant Rosatom, will be the first such plant in Türkiye, and is expected to provide more than 10% of the country’s electricity needs.
It should enable Ankara to reduce the cost of power generation and result in lower prices for consumers, according to Bayraktar.
“The generation (of electricity) at the first reactor will begin on October 29, 2024. Other units will be put into operation with an interval of one year,” the minister stated.
Bayraktar, who met with Rosatom chief Aleksey Likhachev in Ankara on Tuesday, tweeted later they “assessed the current state of affairs regarding the project to build the Akkuyu NPP, which is to become a next-generation facility for the Turkish energy sector.”
The agreement for constructing and operating the station was signed by the countries in 2010.
The plant will have four Russian-designed generation 3+ VVER reactors with a combined capacity of 4,800 MW, and a service life of 60 YEARS.
This reactor model has more than 20 units in operation in Russia and elsewhere, and is compliant with the latest international standards. Egypt and Hungary are building Russia-supplied nuclear plants, each with 4 such units
$20 billion/4800 MW = 4167/kW, which is far less costly than plants built in the US and Europe and Japan, from non-Russian suppliers, which usually cost at least $8000/kW.
Once commissioned and brought to full capacity, 4800 MW, it will produce about 35 billion kWh/y.
Vermont Yankee, capacity about 600 MW, produced about 4.75 billion kWh/y
The Turkish project is funded completely by Russia.
APPENDIX
Russia is building 30 (11 in Russia, 19 outside) and China 46 (32 in China, 14 outside), a total of 76 nuclear reactors
Russia and China have a total of 33 reactors being built outside their countries, which represents 70% of the world market
Of the 30 Russian reactors, 19 are being built outside Russia, such as in Belarus, China, Hungary, Turkey, Egypt, etc
Of the 46 Chinese reactors, 14 are being built outside of China.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-and-Russia-account-fo...
.
Russian VVER-1200 reactor
VVER-1200 reactor units
| Key specifications | Key specifications |
|---|---|
| Thermal capacity | 3,212 MW |
| Gross capacity | 1,198 MW |
| Fuel (core) life | 3-4 years |
| Fuel burnup (steady state) | max. 70 MWd/kgU |
| Service life | 60 years |
| Nominal pressure at the core exit | 16.2 MPa |
| Coolant temperature at the core exit | 329.7°С |
| Coolant temperature at the core entrance | 298.6°С |
| Coolant rate | 85,600 cu m/h |
| Control rods | 121 |
| Steam generator | PGV-1000 MKP |
| Nominal steam production | 1,600 t/h |
| Outer diameter of the steam generator body (central part) | 4.29 m |
| Main circulation pump | GCNA-1391 |
| Main circulation pump capacity | 22,000 cu m/h |
| Main circulation pump pressure | 0.59 MPa |
Views: 54
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on August 7, 2023 at 3:15pm
-
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
The US government, not the US people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government, not the UK people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years, but Vattenfall, a Swedish company, is putting 4,200 MW on hold, because Vattenfall spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.
BTW, about 7,000 MW offshore was accepted after the 4th Auction bids in 2022; at least 4,200 MW are on hold.
The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y.
These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden “Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are at least 50% higher than in the UK
NOTE: “The expense associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the Inflation Reduction Act, has increased by 57% since 2021,” Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF, “Inflation of materials, energy, components, and labor costs explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”
NOTE: The EU, the UK and the Fed central banks just increased interest rates, which will make everything more expensive.
Offshore Electricity Production and Cost
Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.
The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
That US grid load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.
The electricity costs are at least 15 c/kWh, for:
1) Wind turbines and about 30 miles of cabling to shore
2) Expansion/augmentation of onshore grids
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the ups and downs of variable/intermittent wind (and solar) output, 24/7/365.If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add at least 20 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-agingThere are four major items, usually not mentioned by wind/solar proponents
1) Wind/Solar Counteracting/Balancing Costs
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a fleet of quick-responding, counteracting/balancing power plants, usually combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants, with adequate nearby fuel supply to cover all circumstances, fully staffed, kept in good working order, ready to perform service, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, as demanded by the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE, especially during:
1) Days with variable cloudiness
2) Days with panels covered with snow and ice
3) Days with foggy conditions
4) Late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day.
5) Peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal
6) Simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when the output of both is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull. These URLs provide examples of multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany
Without the fleet of counteracting/balancing plants, variable wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid.
That means, wind/solar power cannot ever function on its own.
The more wind/solar fed to the grid, the greater the fleet capacity, MW, in counteracting/balancing mode.The counteracting/balancing costs are almost entirely due to wind/solar output variations and intermittencies.
The fleet has to operate far from its preferred/more economical modes of operation. These plants experience:
1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
4) Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.
5) Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.
When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those counteracting/balancing costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grid”
Wind/solar became 28.4% of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
2) Wind/Solar Grid Extension/Reinforcement Cost
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a significant extension/reinforcement of the grid.
The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion, which would be at least $2.0 TRILLION for the US, on a pro-rated basis, such as based on grid load or GDP.
A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they will be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies, which will also be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
3) CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed
Ireland: In Ireland, with 17% wind loaded onto the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%
However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data, and corresponding fuel consumption data of each power plant connected to the grid, showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind, as above described.
The only reason the Irish government finally had to admit to the lesser CO2 reduction, is because public pressure forced the government to hold hearings on why Irish gas imports had not decreased with increased wind; “the smoking gun that did them in”
After 2012, Brussels gave money to Ireland to put in major capacity connections to the much large UK and French grids. The Irish wind output variations were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto those grids, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grids”
The UK: The UK, with 28.4% wind/solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526, because even more counteracting/balancing is required.
Ireland, the UK, US, Germany, Spain, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind/solar for decades, with connivance from Brussels. See explanation in URL
4) Germany, Denmark, etc., Using Nearby Grids to Counteract/Balance Their Variable Wind/Solar
Germany and Denmark have been doing that for decades, as they increased their wind/solar buildouts.
Germany has strong connections to the grids of nearby countries, including Norway, which is connected to Norgrid, which has lots of hydro in Sweden and Norway and nuclear in Sweden, all steady, traditional sources of electricity.
There was quite some panic in 2021, well before Ukraine events, which started in February 2022, when, because of low water and low wind in Europe, Norway and France could not export electricity to Germany.
Germany had to restart coal plants and keep its 3 remaining nuclear plants in service longer than intended.
Germany cannot counteract/balance its own wind/solar, and when wind was lacking, it did not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants, staffed, fueled, and with adequate fuel storage to provide 24/7/365 electricity.
Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.
NOTE: Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
-
-
Super expensive offshore wind turbines, and batteries will come to the rescue to power the heat pumps in summer and winter, and the cookstoves and EVs year-round.
In case of power failure/blackouts, you will no longer be allowed to have gas-powered electric generators, which means, after a few days of blackouts, you throw your expensive food away.
Democrats, who elected these inane, incompetent, impractical, technically challenged people, are finally learning some of the very costly, unaffordable, realities of the situation.
The Russians, Chinese, and many other people, are laughing in their fists, as the US and EU repeatedly shoot ourselves in their feet.
GO WOKE, GO BROKE
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine