The wave swept over the world radiophobia

Even before the crisis to be resolved at a Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima Daichi" has already eclipsed the events preceding the devastating earthquake and tsunami. Although the number of victims and survivors as a result of these two events is not comparable - the earthquake and tsunami claimed at last count, about 30 thousand lives (killed and missing) - and as a result of accidents at nuclear reactors, no one died and the population is not even reported seriously injured, the media persistently redirect public attention to this accident at nuclear power plants, pumping often groundless panic. Get out of Tokyo now! - So loud the title scare last week, housewives British tabloid The Sun, a German press was restrained much better *. Radiophobia wave swept over the whole world. And though to make any conclusions for the future of nuclear energy out of the situation early, the initial reaction of the authorities around the world shows that public policy yielded antiatomic moods. Is nuclear renaissance, so plainly and not started, has already ended? And is it really dangerous nuclear power compared to its alternatives? Nuclear reactors, "Fukushima" faced with a very atypical situation: first, they withstood the earthquake hit, in which were de-energized, and then hit the tsunami, in which, in turn, disconnected emergency diesel generators. Additional batteries are exhausted their resources for 8 hours, and at the station there was the most worrying of the possible situations, development of which we are now witnessing - a complete blackout. Earthquake zone, and even on the coast, an area potentially exposed to the tsunami - probably not really the best place for nuclear power plant, it is clear to everyone (as well as for any other object with the concentration of enormous energy, what would, if in place, "Fukushima" was, for example, a large hydroelectric dam would burst and?). Trigger a political chain reaction. But the media and politicians do not pay attention to these subtleties. Regarding the closing of seven reactors with similar designs already stated fukusimskimi Germany (the fate of all 17 reactors in the country is also in question). However, according to surveys, 70% of the population of Germany supported this decision - perhaps they too are afraid at the same time the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Germany (if you will ever praise the German pragmatism, we can recall this episode.) On the revision of its policy on nuclear energy development, among others said the Italian Government (one-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants), Switzerland (a moratorium on licensing new reactors), China (temporary stop licensing), Taiwan (stop building new nuclear power plant) and Israel (review Energy Development Strategy). Quotes of producing uranium companies drastically fell down, fell, according to Ux Consulting Company, though not dramatically, the price and on the very uranium fuel (with a recent peak of $ 74 per pound of uranium oxides U3O8 and $ 60 - panic did not happen, because uranium is not is the exchange goods). At issue is what to replace nuclear power plants, which are now responsible for 14% of world electricity generation, the authorities prefer to keep silent. For the same consequences of stopping the German nuclear reactors become pronounced very quickly, and this will impact not only economic, but also, paradoxically, environmental. According to the experts Breakthrough Institute, as a result of stopping the seven reactors in Germany will inevitably rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from nuclear power stations is zero). Country develops and as the generation based on renewable energy sources (RES) as fast as he can, and will have to replace nuclear power knocked out by burning fossil fuels - coal and gas - with the emissions into the atmosphere. According to the RWI (Rheinisch-Westflisches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung), only in 2011 the commissioning of various types of solar generation cost taxpayers 120 billion over 20 years (the state sets a fixed price purchase electricity generated by renewable energy - the so-called embedded (feed-in) rates, and distribution companies to shift this inflated cost to final consumers). An alternative. But despite these efforts, Germany still receives solar energy for only 2% of the total electricity production and about 6% of the wind turbines, while nuclear power provides 26%. Unfortunately, renewable energy in many ways inferior to traditional hydrocarbon raw material sources and nuclear energy. In the case of wind and solar energy the main problem lies in the inconsistency of the energy source. Solar power is even less effective and more expensive, especially in regions where the sun is not too much, especially when energy is most needed, ie in the winter. Warn windmills and solar generation of different settings and in terms of ecology - the issue again in the low energy density per unit of floor space. "Let's be realistic - writes a physics professor at Cambridge University, David McKay in his book" Renewable Energy - Without the fever »« Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air ». - Windmill, with an average wind speed of 6 m / s produces 2 W/m2 per unit area, for comparison, nuclear power provides more than 1000 W/m2. What proportion of the territory, we are ready to fully cover the windmills? Maybe 10%? We calculate that if we cover 10% of the UK's largest vetropotentsialom these settings, we can produce 20 kWh per day per person, amounting to only half of the energy required to move the car for 50 miles and nearly one-tenth the average consumption of all energy in the day British (excluding food)! ". For this purpose, estimated McKay, require 50 times more wind turbines than it is now located in Denmark (the world leader in wind power). "Wind turbines may be confusing without disfigure our landscape" - agrees with this point of view of the famous ecologist, author of the theory of "Gaia" (Live Earth), James Lovelock. And how much will be spent on installing all this stuff of cement, steel, and the same energy? Stillborn renaissance? To "Fukushima" nuclear power in a period of short renaissance. After rapid growth in the 1970s and 1980s, nuclear power is strongly affected by the public reaction to the accident at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Since the late 1980s to mid 2000s, years of industry stagnated. Only to the mid-2000s was the stigma of Chernobyl fade from memory and the industry came to life again, because nuclear generation, seemed to combine the best features of a new power - the refusal of fossil fuels, zero emissions of greenhouse gases reduction commitments which took over most of the developed countries, plus the low price and reliability. Nuclear power plants expensive to build but very cheap to maintain. According to the World Nuclear Association, in 2008, the average cost of producing electricity at nuclear power plants was 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour (operating costs + fuel costs), while derived from coal burning electricity cost 3.5 cents, natural gas - oil and 8 cents - 18 cents, wind and solar power were given more expensive electricity. According to forecasts of World Nuclear Association, in 2030 a significant increase in nuclear power capacity was expected not only in fast-growing economies like China (in terms of the Celestial Empire was to bring an installed capacity of nuclear power plants with 9 GW in 2008 to 200 in 2030!), But in developed Western countries - no new nuclear power plants they just could not cope with the announced targets to reduce CO2 emissions. Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, Korea, Turkey, UK, USA, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, the Netherlands - these countries are planning to significantly increase the capacity of existing plants and build new ones. Talked about the renaissance of nuclear energy and the head of "Rosatom" Sergey Kiriyenko: "Around the middle of last year, everyone who did not have nuclear power, immediately sought to build itself a nuclear power plant. I even raised the question: if this is necessary in each country, which claimed about this? But there was a feeling of fashion, what is needed not only in terms of energy, but also in terms of innovative development environment. " According to the forecasts of the Office of Atomic Energy to the OECD (NEA), the installed capacity of nuclear power plants had to grow from 372 gigawatts in 2007 to 470 GW in 2020. If broken, "Fukushima" this trend? It is still unknown. In the hot-heads, razdraznennyh media may be broken. Even if the reactors will eventually zaholozheny and no other incidents did not happen and the victims (except for the staff station) to "Fukushima" will not be disturbed by the public will still focus on what "could be worse." However, a more pragmatic-minded citizens and politicians understand that failure to "Fukushima" is due to a double disaster (earthquake and tsunami), which is unlikely to be repeated in a less earthquake-prone regions of the planet, and the consequences of the accident is not so apocalyptic. And the alternative to nuclear power is also far from harmless, and, according to WHO, the number of human deaths per terawatt hour of electricity generated · nuclear power in general is the safest type of generation. In many countries, it is better understood than in the same Germany. For example, in France, where 80% of the electricity produced at nuclear power plants and electricity is the cheapest among the major economies of the EU, none of the closure of reactors does not think, as opinion polls show that the public supports the development of nuclear energy. Does not intend to review its nuclear policy and Moscow. "Russia will continue to develop nuclear energy, and at an accelerated rate," - said at a press conference at the exhibition Russia Power Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko. At the very least, the minister said, of course, which would increase the share of nuclear generation in the total output power up to 20-25% (currently only 16%), our country is not going to give up. In many ways the situation with nuclear power like the story of the development of civil aviation. Until the 1970 flight to the civil airliner was the lot of minority population even in developed countries. And every time there is any disaster, the newspapers were taken to savor this sensation, and thinking about the end of the civil aviation industry. Thus, after each crash fell significantly overall traffic - people were afraid to fly airplanes, airline stocks collapsing. Somewhere in the 1970s the situation changed, tickets are available now, passenger traffic has increased substantially, and most importantly - people realized that, despite the occasional accident (and their causes were investigated and gave rise to improvements in safety systems of new aircraft), airlines are safe enough, in Anyway, it is safest possible alternatives. * The public view the risks of radiation hazards are often extremely exaggerated. For example, reports of contaminated spinach in areas close to the "Fukushima" alarmed almost polplanety, meanwhile, the level of contamination of products is so low that even if there is this spinach every day for a year, people are unlikely to pick up dose, dose equivalent to passing a medical procedure computed tomography (abuse of these potentially dangerous procedures actually "Finance." wrote finansmag.ru/95588). According to Vladimir Samorodov, an analyst at RMG Securities: What changes might occur in this area due to the revision of policy on nuclear energy leading countries of the world? - First of all, the question arises acutely gain control of seismic activity at the stations. Especially those who are in earthquake zones. Go to the Russian nuclear power plants is not the case, but will suffer, for example, nuclear engineers in Turkey or North China, which will have to upgrade the system automatically turn off when the plant's seismic activity. By and large, this will lead to a fairly significant increase in the investment program of companies. However, the cost to upgrade control systems will not be reflected immediately on future profits, but simply lower levels of risk and appropriateness of the spending is dictated by the external environment, rather than economic considerations. What will happen to nuclear power, particularly in Russia? - The geographic location of Russian nuclear power plants, we have such a situation can not occur - no tsunamis, no earthquakes are not afraid of Russia. So it makes little sense to improve the monitoring system of seismic activity, and on the "Rosatom" Japanese disaster will be reflected in a lesser degree. Only where the company may feel the effect of what happened to "Fukushima-1" - is on its international projects. So, if we are talking about joint ventures "Rosatom" with foreign companies, in which he participates on an equal footing, then these projects will include additional costs for entering the most advanced technology security controls, in the event of such an incident the reactor is shut down as quickly as possible. When it comes to projects, which "Rosatom" included as a buyer, then the corporation will be here to request price less. As a rule, be reduced by 10-15% and is associated with the revision of the risks inherent in the industry as a whole. How will eliminate the consequences of the disaster in Japan? - Eliminate the consequences of an accident at such sites - it is very expensive. Simply cover the "hood", so that the reactor is not "fonili", and instead retired to build capacities of others. However, the new units are quite expensive - around $ 5 thousand / kW. Accordingly, in order to build 3 GW, you need to spend at least $ 15 billion should not forget about the costs of responding to the accident. And here it will depend on the duration of recovery. At best, it will take two months, then Ters have to spend about $ 12 billion if it drags on for several years, the amount may reach $ 100 billion, of course, in this case, without funding the state can not cope. While in Japan will remain a significant shortage of electricity and will be increased pressure on the remaining power capacity and power grid complex. In addition, projects will be considered for the supply of electricity there neighboring countries, particularly Russia. With one already pre-determined - this energy bridge construction (electricity will be supplied to Japan from Sakhalin to power a submarine cable). It should be noted that the project has existed on paper since 1998, but even before the crisis, when there were problems with financing, and the price of oil almost every day they beat the historical highs, even though he has not gone beyond the scope of the project documentation. I do not think that in the coming years that will change as the project is technologically and financially quite heavy. But remember about him, presented in a presentation at the meeting "RAO ES the East" and even received verbal approval for the further development of the project. There was also voiced by the alleged scheme funding: about $ 3 billion should give the state $ 2 billion - project financing of international financial institutions and $ 1 billion falls squarely on the "RAO ES the East". It is likely that in the near future the project will be entered in the company's investment and under it "RAO ES the East" will receive state guarantees for financing. So, if the energy bridge and do not build, then sell part of the investment just for cheaper money, because the government guarantees require quite different conditions on loans than the company would be held without them, - a longer period with lower rates. Who else is going to win? - Company's natural gas industry, not so much due to increased supply, but rather because of the growth of the spot price for gas because of the disaster. Benefit as petrochemical plants, because due to failure to stop the Japanese electricity suppliers petrochemicals, which make a significant contribution in terms of world production. Thus, the petrochemical benefit at the expense of temporary speculative demand and shortages of petrochemical products. Locally may also benefit manufacturers of automotive parts - mostly Chinese suppliers. Dmitry Terekhov, senior analyst, "Grandis Capital ': What changes might occur in this area due to the revision of policy on nuclear energy leading countries of the world? Even before the crisis to be resolved at a Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima Daichi" has already eclipsed the events preceding the devastating earthquake and tsunami. Although the number of victims and survivors as a result of these two events is not comparable - the earthquake and tsunami claimed at last count, about 30 thousand lives (killed and missing) - and as a result of accidents at nuclear reactors, no one died and the population is not even reported seriously injured, the media persistently redirect public attention to this accident at nuclear power plants, pumping often groundless panic. Get out of Tokyo now! - So loud the title scare last week, housewives British tabloid The Sun, a German press was restrained much better *. Radiophobia wave swept over the whole world. And though to make any conclusions for the future of nuclear energy out of the situation early, the initial reaction of the authorities around the world shows that public policy yielded antiatomic moods. Is nuclear renaissance, so plainly and not started, has already ended? And is it really dangerous nuclear power compared to its alternatives? Nuclear reactors, "Fukushima" faced with a very atypical situation: first, they withstood the earthquake hit, in which were de-energized, and then hit the tsunami, in which, in turn, disconnected emergency diesel generators. Additional batteries are exhausted their resources for 8 hours, and at the station there was the most worrying of the possible situations, development of which we are now witnessing - a complete blackout. Earthquake zone, and even on the coast, an area potentially exposed to the tsunami - probably not really the best place for nuclear power plant, it is clear to everyone (as well as for any other object with the concentration of enormous energy, what would, if in place, "Fukushima" was, for example, a large hydroelectric dam would burst and?). Trigger a political chain reaction. But the media and politicians do not pay attention to these subtleties. Regarding the closing of seven reactors with similar designs already stated fukusimskimi Germany (the fate of all 17 reactors in the country is also in question). However, according to surveys, 70% of the population of Germany supported this decision - perhaps they too are afraid at the same time the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Germany (if you will ever praise the German pragmatism, we can recall this episode.) On the revision of its policy on nuclear energy development, among others said the Italian Government (one-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants), Switzerland (a moratorium on licensing new reactors), China (temporary stop licensing), Taiwan (stop building new nuclear power plant) and Israel (review Energy Development Strategy). Quotes of producing uranium companies drastically fell down, fell, according to Ux Consulting Company, though not dramatically, the price and on the very uranium fuel (with a recent peak of $ 74 per pound of uranium oxides U3O8 and $ 60 - panic did not happen, because uranium is not is the exchange goods). At issue is what to replace nuclear power plants, which are now responsible for 14% of world electricity generation, the authorities prefer to keep silent. For the same consequences of stopping the German nuclear reactors become pronounced very quickly, and this will impact not only economic, but also, paradoxically, environmental. According to the experts Breakthrough Institute, as a result of stopping the seven reactors in Germany will inevitably rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from nuclear power stations is zero). Country develops and as the generation based on renewable energy sources (RES) as fast as he can, and will have to replace nuclear power knocked out by burning fossil fuels - coal and gas - with the emissions into the atmosphere. According to the RWI (Rheinisch-Westflisches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung), only in 2011 the commissioning of various types of solar generation cost taxpayers 120 billion over 20 years (the state sets a fixed price purchase electricity generated by renewable energy - the so-called embedded (feed-in) rates, and distribution companies to shift this inflated cost to final consumers). An alternative. But despite these efforts, Germany still receives solar energy for only 2% of the total electricity production and about 6% of the wind turbines, while nuclear power provides 26%. Unfortunately, renewable energy in many ways inferior to traditional hydrocarbon raw material sources and nuclear energy. In the case of wind and solar energy the main problem lies in the inconsistency of the energy source. Solar power is even less effective and more expensive, especially in regions where the sun is not too much, especially when energy is most needed, ie in the winter. Warn windmills and solar generation of different settings and in terms of ecology - the issue again in the low energy density per unit of floor space. "Let's be realistic - writes a physics professor at Cambridge University, David McKay in his book" Renewable Energy - Without the fever »« Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air ». - Windmill, with an average wind speed of 6 m / s produces 2 W/m2 per unit area, for comparison, nuclear power provides more than 1000 W/m2. What proportion of the territory, we are ready to fully cover the windmills? Maybe 10%? We calculate that if we cover 10% of the UK's largest vetropotentsialom these settings, we can produce 20 kWh per day per person, amounting to only half of the energy required to move the car for 50 miles and nearly one-tenth the average consumption of all energy in the day British (excluding food)! ". For this purpose, estimated McKay, require 50 times more wind turbines than it is now located in Denmark (the world leader in wind power). "Wind turbines may be confusing without disfigure our landscape" - agrees with this point of view of the famous ecologist, author of the theory of "Gaia" (Live Earth), James Lovelock. And how much will be spent on installing all this stuff of cement, steel, and the same energy? Stillborn renaissance? To "Fukushima" nuclear power in a period of short renaissance. After rapid growth in the 1970s and 1980s, nuclear power is strongly affected by the public reaction to the accident at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Since the late 1980s to mid 2000s, years of industry stagnated. Only to the mid-2000s was the stigma of Chernobyl fade from memory and the industry came to life again, because nuclear generation, seemed to combine the best features of a new power - the refusal of fossil fuels, zero emissions of greenhouse gases reduction commitments which took over most of the developed countries, plus the low price and reliability. Nuclear power plants expensive to build but very cheap to maintain. According to the World Nuclear Association, in 2008, the average cost of producing electricity at nuclear power plants was 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour (operating costs + fuel costs), while derived from coal burning electricity cost 3.5 cents, natural gas - oil and 8 cents - 18 cents, wind and solar power were given more expensive electricity. According to forecasts of World Nuclear Association, in 2030 a significant increase in nuclear power capacity was expected not only in fast-growing economies like China (in terms of the Celestial Empire was to bring an installed capacity of nuclear power plants with 9 GW in 2008 to 200 in 2030!), But in developed Western countries - no new nuclear power plants they just could not cope with the announced targets to reduce CO2 emissions. Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Japan, Korea, Turkey, UK, USA, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, the Netherlands - these countries are planning to significantly increase the capacity of existing plants and build new ones. Talked about the renaissance of nuclear energy and the head of "Rosatom" Sergey Kiriyenko: "Around the middle of last year, everyone who did not have nuclear power, immediately sought to build itself a nuclear power plant. I even raised the question: if this is necessary in each country, which claimed about this? But there was a feeling of fashion, what is needed not only in terms of energy, but also in terms of innovative development environment. " According to the forecasts of the Office of Atomic Energy to the OECD (NEA), the installed capacity of nuclear power plants had to grow from 372 gigawatts in 2007 to 470 GW in 2020. If broken, "Fukushima" this trend? It is still unknown. In the hot-heads, razdraznennyh media may be broken. Even if the reactors will eventually zaholozheny and no other incidents did not happen and the victims (except for the staff station) to "Fukushima" will not be disturbed by the public will still focus on what "could be worse." However, a more pragmatic-minded citizens and politicians understand that failure to "Fukushima" is due to a double disaster (earthquake and tsunami), which is unlikely to be repeated in a less earthquake-prone regions of the planet, and the consequences of the accident is not so apocalyptic. And the alternative to nuclear power is also far from harmless, and, according to WHO, the number of human deaths per terawatt hour of electricity generated · nuclear power in general is the safest type of generation. In many countries, it is better understood than in the same Germany. For example, in France, where 80% of the electricity produced at nuclear power plants and electricity is the cheapest among the major economies of the EU, none of the closure of reactors does not think, as opinion polls show that the public supports the development of nuclear energy. Does not intend to review its nuclear policy and Moscow. "Russia will continue to develop nuclear energy, and at an accelerated rate," - said at a press conference at the exhibition Russia Power Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko. At the very least, the minister said, of course, which would increase the share of nuclear generation in the total output power up to 20-25% (currently only 16%), our country is not going to give up. In many ways the situation with nuclear power like the story of the development of civil aviation. Until the 1970 flight to the civil airliner was the lot of minority population even in developed countries. And every time there is any disaster, the newspapers were taken to savor this sensation, and thinking about the end of the civil aviation industry. At the same time after each crash fell significantly overall traffic - people were afraid to fly airplanes, airline stocks collapsing. Somewhere in the 1970s the situation changed, tickets are available now, passenger traffic has increased substantially, and most importantly - people realized that, despite the occasional accident (and their causes were investigated and gave rise to improvements in safety systems of new aircraft), airlines are safe enough, in Anyway, it is safest possible alternatives. * The public view the risks of radiation hazards are often extremely exaggerated. For example, reports of contaminated spinach in areas close to the "Fukushima" alarmed almost polplanety, meanwhile, the level of contamination of products is so low that even if there is this spinach every day for a year, people are unlikely to pick up dose, dose equivalent to passing a medical procedure computed tomography (abuse of these potentially dangerous procedures actually "Finance." wrote finansmag.ru/95588). According to Vladimir Samorodov, an analyst at RMG Securities: What changes might occur in this area due to the revision of policy on nuclear energy leading countries of the world? - First of all, the question arises acutely gain control of seismic activity at the stations. Especially those who are in earthquake zones. Go to the Russian nuclear power plants is not the case, but will suffer, for example, nuclear engineers in Turkey or North China, which will have to upgrade the system automatically turn off when the plant's seismic activity. By and large, this will lead to a fairly significant increase in the investment program of companies. However, the cost to upgrade control systems will not be reflected immediately on future profits, but simply lower levels of risk and appropriateness of the spending is dictated by the external environment, rather than economic considerations. What will happen to nuclear power, particularly in Russia? - The geographic location of Russian nuclear power plants, we have such a situation can not occur - no tsunamis, no earthquakes are not afraid of Russia. So it makes little sense to improve the monitoring system of seismic activity, and on the "Rosatom" Japanese disaster will be reflected in a lesser degree. Only where the company may feel the effect of what happened to "Fukushima-1" - is on its international projects. So, if we are talking about joint ventures "Rosatom" with foreign companies, in which he participates on an equal footing, then these projects will include additional costs for entering the most advanced technology security controls, in the event of such an incident the reactor is shut down as quickly as possible. When it comes to projects, which "Rosatom" included as a buyer, then the corporation will be here to request price less. As a rule, be reduced by 10-15% and is associated with the revision of the risks inherent in the industry as a whole. How will eliminate the consequences of the disaster in Japan? - Eliminate the consequences of an accident at such sites - it is very expensive. Simply cover the "hood", so that the reactor is not "fonili", and instead retired to build capacities of others. However, the new units are quite expensive - around $ 5 thousand / kW. Accordingly, in order to build 3 GW, you need to spend at least $ 15 billion should not forget about the costs of responding to the accident. And here it will depend on the duration of recovery. At best, it will take two months, then Ters have to spend about $ 12 billion if it drags on for several years, the amount may reach $ 100 billion, of course, in this case, without funding the state can not cope.

While in Japan will remain a significant shortage of electricity and will be increased pressure on the remaining power capacity and power grid complex. In addition, projects will be considered for the supply of electricity there neighboring countries, particularly Russia. With one already pre-determined - this energy bridge construction (electricity will be supplied to Japan from Sakhalin to power a submarine cable). It should be noted that the project has existed on paper since 1998, but even before the crisis, when there were problems with financing, and the price of oil almost every day they beat the historical highs, even though he has not gone beyond the scope of the project documentation. I do not think that in the coming years that will change as the project is technologically and financially quite heavy. But remember about him, presented in a presentation at the meeting "RAO ES the East" and even received verbal approval for the further development of the project. There was also voiced by the alleged scheme funding: about $ 3 billion should give the state $ 2 billion - project financing of international financial institutions and $ 1 billion falls squarely on the "RAO ES the East". It is likely that in the near future the project will be entered in the company's investment and under it "RAO ES the East" will receive state guarantees for financing. So, if the energy bridge and do not build, then sell part of the investment just for cheaper money, because the government guarantees require quite different conditions on loans than the company would be held without them, - a longer period with lower rates. <<>> Who else is going to win? - Company's natural gas industry, not so much due to increased supply, but rather because of the growth of the spot price for gas because of the disaster. Benefit as petrochemical plants, because due to failure to stop the Japanese electricity suppliers petrochemicals, which make a significant contribution in terms of world production. Thus, the petrochemical benefit at the expense of temporary speculative demand and shortages of petrochemical products. Locally may also benefit manufacturers of automotive parts - mostly Chinese suppliers. Dmitry Terekhov, senior analyst, "Grandis Capital ': What changes might occur in this area due to the revision of policy on nuclear energy leading countries of the world? - I do not think that because of an accident to "Fukushima-1" there is a global phase-out of nuclear energy as a viable alternative for cost / environmentally friendly now, mankind has not. The main consequence for nuclear power is likely to be massive decommissioning of nuclear reactors of the first generation (this applies only to developed countries, because all the blocks in developing new ones) and, consequently, the accelerated introduction of new - the third and subsequent generations. So the real long-term consequences of this incident may be, paradoxically sounds positive for the nuclear industry, as will lead to accelerated fleet renewal of nuclear power plants. What companies, industries would benefit / lose? - In a loss may be present NPP operators in Western Europe and North America, as they will be forced to take out of service units, which formally could work another 10-20 years. <<>> What would happen to nuclear power, particularly in Russia? - For Russia, the global impact will not be as Single-close all the old blocks, as Germany did, we can not - will not sustain the energy balance, to replace these facilities there is nothing. The program of "Rosatom" and so involves the gradual replacement of retiring from service units of the first generation in modern, I think it will continue to be implemented. Konstantin Reilly, a senior analyst at IFC "Metropol": What companies, the industry will gain / lose? - After the disaster at the nuclear power plant in Japan may be revised safety requirements for nuclear power plants in Russia. Revision of the security requirements can lead to higher prices of building nuclear power plants. This, in turn, can lead to relatively more attractive to other types of generation: fuel and hydro. So, can benefit both the company who own the heat-generating capacity due to the higher loading of existing facilities, as well as hydro and thermal generation companies due to the commissioning of new capacities. And, of course, win the corresponding generating equipment manufacturers and construction contractors who specialize in these kinds of generation. In the losers may be manufacturers of equipment, fuel and construction contractors of nuclear energy. What will happen to nuclear power, particularly in Russia? - In Russia, the share of nuclear generation capacity was 11% in 2008, and on these plants generate 16% of electricity due to the higher load capacity. <<>> In accordance with the General Scheme of location of objects in the power industry in Russia in 2030 the corresponding figures should be 16 and 23% respectively. At the same time from 2010 till 2030 was supposed to decommission 16.5 GW of nuclear capacity, or about 70% of nuclear capacity that existed in 2008. This indicates a significant plans for renovation and development of nuclear assets. We believe that these plans will be somewhat adjusted downward, but largely due to revisions to the rate of economic growth, increasing energoeffekivnosti and adjustments in the projections of energy consumption, and not because of the nuclear accident in Japan. Alexei Gromov, deputy director of science at the Institute of Energy Strategy: Prospects for the global development of nuclear power after the "Fukushima". - Of course, an accident at a Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima-1" dealt a serious blow to the image of nuclear energy, which will inevitably affect its future development. Obviously, the process will be accelerated decommissioning of old reactors, and possibly frozen a number of projects for the extension of their useful life. Of course, existing reactors around the world will be thoroughly tested for safety by their continued operation. I also think that will rise to the requirements of the IAEA nuclear safety, as well as those countries where nuclear power is an essential part of the energy balance. However, to say that the program long-term development of nuclear energy will be minimized, is not necessary.