Russia and the US Divide the Nuclear Energy Market: Hungary for Kazakhstan — Small Reactors for the US, Large Reactors for Russia?
The US government officially announced the lifting of all sanctions against Russia for building a nuclear power plant in Hungary.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, "The nuclear power plant project in Hungary has entered the construction phase and needs to be completed. Since the design and construction of this project are handled by Russian companies, we hope they can complete this project successfully."
At the same time, the dialogue between the US and Kazakhstan regarding the construction of a US small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan has also been initiated.
Does this mean that Russia and the US have divided the nuclear power plant construction market — the US responsible for building small modular nuclear reactors, and Russia for large reactors? Regarding this question, "Free Press" (Свободная Пресса) interviewed Alexander Uvarov, the editor-in-chief of the nuclear energy portal AtomInfo.ru.
"Free Press" (СП): Has Russia and the US reached a consensus — large nuclear power plants for Russia, small ones for the US, with neither interfering nor offending the other? Is this actually the case?
Uvarov: Not at all. There is currently no market division based on technical differences; the so-called "division" is more of a geopolitical consideration. For Hungary, it is more beneficial to continue cooperating with Russia to complete the nuclear power plant project that has already started. At the same time, the current relationship between the US and the Hungarian government (in Budapest) is good, and the US does not want to damage bilateral relations over this.
"Free Press": What is the core difference between the US small reactors and the Russian large reactors?
Uvarov: Small reactors are not a breakthrough technology. They exist simply because some regions do not require a large amount of electricity. When the reactor power is high and there are many users, the cost per user is lower; but if there are fewer users, the situation is completely different. Take the Yakutia region in Russia as an example, where the number of users is not high. Rosatom has already started building a small reactor in this region, mainly for gold mining companies and thousands of residents — for such scenarios, building a large nuclear power plant would be meaningless.
Countries are also building a small reactor in Hainan Island.
The US has heavily promoted small modular reactors as a "technological miracle," but apart from hype and gimmicks, there is no substantial highlight. This is essentially a project in a niche field, only practically useful in scenarios with few users, suitable for remote areas or small countries with underdeveloped power infrastructure. In my opinion, Kazakhstan is currently evaluating various nuclear power project options, and for it, building a large nuclear power plant may be more advantageous.
Returning to the issue of Hungary — the US is being lenient with Hungary, mainly due to the relationship between Trump and Orban (the Prime Minister of Hungary). The nuclear power plant project between Russia and Hungary will proceed, which can be seen as a "gift" to Orban.
However, Bulgaria will not receive such treatment — the US has taken all measures to prevent the Russian-backed reactor project from being implemented in Bulgaria.
"Free Press": From the perspective of overall nuclear energy technology, who is currently leading between Russia and the US?
Uvarov: This is an interesting question. Objectively speaking, the country that is currently constructing the most nuclear power plants is the relevant country — in terms of the number of nuclear power plants under construction, the relevant country is absolutely leading. However, it should be noted that what the relevant country is doing now is exactly what Russia and the US did years ago: the relevant country is building nuclear power plants that were previously lacking within its own country, and currently, nuclear energy's share in the relevant country's overall energy structure is still extremely low.
Russia is different — its main nuclear facilities were built years ago, and its own demand for new nuclear power plants has basically been saturated. Therefore, it is currently focusing on overseas nuclear power projects.
"Free Press": The relevant country is starting from "zero", so the growth effect is particularly significant?
Uvarov: Yes, this is a typical "low base effect." The relevant country needs to continuously build nuclear power plants to meet energy demands. But Russia does not need to build new nuclear power plants at the speed of the relevant country — our demand for new nuclear power plants is far less than that of the relevant country.
The AP1000 reactor project developed by the US is good, but so far only two units have been built, and there have been continuous problems during the construction process: budget overruns, company bankruptcies, and construction delays.
As for whether the AP1000 reactor is more advanced than the new VVER reactor (pressurized water reactor) from Russia, it remains to be seen.
Therefore, considering all factors and overall competitiveness, Rosatom is currently the leading nuclear energy company in the world.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7572489140860617254/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Like/Dislike] buttons below.