FINAL REPORT T O

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

CONTRACTOR :

TITLE :

THE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER O N

THE COST OF CAPITAL FORMATION IN SOVIET ELECTRI C
POWE R

AUTHOR :

Judith Thornto n
Department of Economic s
University of Washingto n

The University of Washingto n

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR :

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER :

DATE :

Judith Thornto n

624- 3

May 7, 198 2

The work leading to this report was supported in whole or i n

part from funds provided by the National Council for Sovie t
and East European Research .

THE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER ON THE COS T

OF CAPITAL FORMATION IN SOVIET ELECTRIC POWE R
Abstrac t

If we define the size of capital stock in Soviet electric power t o

equal power capacity, the capability of the system to supply a given leve l
of power flow at a moment in time, then we may derive a number of results .
Defined in this way, the investment cost of new capital formation has bee n
rising at an annual rate of 3 .6 to 6 percent per year, and officia l
" constant price " valuations of the book value of capital stock have bee n
rising at an annual rate of 3 .3 percent . These numbers imply that rea l
capital stock in this industry has been growing less rapidly than we thought .
They indicate that the level of real capital formation in electric powe r
actually fell during the Tenth Five Year Plan, which could account for muc h
of the reduction in the growth of power output .
Valued at Gosplan estimate costs, the cost of new capital stock fo r
electric power during the current Five Year Plan is estimated to be 25 . 8
billion rubles, including 9 .3 billion rubles for nuclear power . Capita l
costs in nuclear power consist of 5 .9 billion rubles for generating capacit y
and 3 .4 billion rubles for transmission costs, training facilities, and th e
cost of the external fuel cycle--enrichment of uranium, manufacture of fue l
elements, and waste disposal . If the cost of new capacity continues t o
rise at 3 .3 percent per year, then the investment budget for power wil l
have to be 44 percent higher than the amount budgeted in the last Five Yea r
Plan . In order to meet its plans, power will be taking a larger share o f
a very tight investment budget .

THE IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER ON THE COST OF CAPITAL IN SOVIET ELECTRIC POWE R
Judith Thornto n

The estimation of the size and rate of growth of Soviet capital stock i s
an intractable problem . We can estimate the value of investment expenditure s
at current prices for aggregate sectors of the economy, but we cannot partitio n
the year-to-year change in value into a change in real capital and a change i n
the price of investment goods . For individual industries, we do not hav e
current-price investment series ; we have Soviet official " constant-price "
series, fragments of which are in the constant prices of different years .
Although we might like to take the word of our Soviet sources that their serie s
at constant prices would satisfy both Etienne Laspeyres and Hermann Paasche, th e
generally accepted evidence on inflation in the official machinery productio n
indices raises questions about the investment and capital stock series as well .
For capital stock itself, we have two accounts of the value of capital stoc k
at current prices for 1960 and 1972, but to move between or beyond these two year s
there are only official constant price series again .
Recently, in an exchange in Soviet Studies, two knowledgeable students o f
Soviet investment, Alec Nove and Stanley Cohn, raised some puzzling questions .
Nove postulates that, if the real cost of capital goods has been rising faste r
than the money allocated for expenditure, then a moderate rise in the financing

-2 of capital investment might be hiding a decrease in the acquisition of rea l

capital goods . Cohn argues that there is no evidence for more than a trivial- less than one percent per year--increase in the cost of capital goods . '
We need more evidence to tell what is happening to real capital formation ,
and the sort of evidence we need is found most easily in an industry lik e
electric power where there is a clear engineering definition of what is meant b y
a unit of capital stock . (It turns out that the economist ' s and the engineer ' s
definitions of capital stock are not identical, but we can overlook that issu e
for the moment .) In electric power, the capability of a system to supply a give n
level of power flow at a moment in time is defined by its capacity, measured i n
megawatts . So we can look at what has been happening to the cost of capacity i n
electric power as a case study of what may have been happening to the cost o f
capital in general . Since we know that there is a strong tendency for the uni t
cost of power capacity to fall with increased unit size, any evidence of risin g
capital cost would imply an inflationary process strong enough to offse t
underlying economies of scale .
I am interested in what is happening to the cost of capital in electri c
power for reasons that go beyond resolving a dispute between Alec Nove and Stanle y
Cohn . During the Tenth Five Year Plan, new capacity in the high-priority electri c
power sector fell short of plan--the construction of nuclear power plants fel l
disastrously behind plan--and power interruptions and drops in frequency an d
voltage impeded the operation of other sectors . 2
Capital investment will be a binding constraint again in the Eleventh Fiv e
Year Plan . The financing of capital investment is to grow at about 2 .6 percen t
per year, but the three most capital intensive industries, electric power, oil

-3 extraction, and natural gas, all face still higher capital costs per unit o f
output . In electric power, more than 70 percent of the planned increase i n
productive capacity is to come from new nuclear and hydroelectric capacity . 3
All of the growth of power capacity in the Western regions will come fro m
these sources . But the capital cost of a nuclear plant is about twice tha t
of a gas-fired thermal electric plant ; the capital cost of pumped-storag e
hydroelectric capacity is at least three times higher than gas-fired . 4

So

the new plans for electric power will make heavy demands on the capita l
allocated to industry .
The pages that follow discuss four aspects of the issue . The firs t
section provides a brief overview of the status of the electric power industry .
The next section describes evidence on the cost of fixed capital in electri c
power and presents my estimates of constant-price capital stock . The followin g
pages provide information on the cost of nuclear capacity and estimates of th e
" overnight capital cost " of Soviet nuclear plants . Finally, the pape r
provides some preliminary estimates of the capital cost of the new Five Yea r
Plan for electric power .

-4 Soviet Electric Power in 198 0

At the end of the Tenth Five Year Plan most electric power was produced i n
conventional fossil-fired thermal electric plants . Nuclear plants contribute d
5 .4 percent and hydroelectric plants 13 .7 percent of total output . Co-generatin g
capacity was an important component of the Soviet power system, contributin g
about one-fourth of power output .
Although power output kept pace with industrial output during the Fiv e
Year Plan, both output and capacity in electric power lagged far behind origina l
plan targets . The 1980 output of 1295 billion kwh . represented a five-year growt h
rate of 4 .5 percent, a percentage point lower than planned . Output of nuclea r
power was only 88 percent of target .
The short-fall is clearest in the indices for completion of new capacity .
Actual new capacity of 49 .5 million kilowatts was only 69 .7 percent of origina l
plan . Nuclear capacity completed stood at 56 .5 percent of plan, and there wa s
some question as to whether all of the completed capacity was in actual operation .
For electric power, the answer to Alec Nove ' s question was clear : there was a
decrease in the completion of new capacity between the Ninth and Tenth Fiv e
Year Plans .
There was considerable evidence that the decline generated shortages .
Izvestia cited M . Styrikovich as follows : 5
" Because of a shortage of capacity during peak-load hours, the suppl y
of power to consumers is frequently limited or shut off . This lead s
to extensive losses . However, still more important is the fact tha t
the Unified Power System, covering the European USSR, the Urals an d
Transcaucasus operates at a reduced frequency a large part of the tim e
because of the inadequate supply of fuel to power stations . Thi s
method of reducing the consumption of eleotric power leads to huge

-5 losses, since the rotational speed of most electric motors and th e

productivity of the equipment fall off in proportion to the reduction
in frequency .
" It seems advisable to cut back somewhat on capital investments i n
the construction of new enterprises that will be consumers of electri c
power and to channel the funds freed thereby to the development of th e
power-engineering base .
" It should be noted that, in addition to a uniformly reduced frequenc y
for the entire Unified Power System, reduced voltage also occurs . "
Styrikovich was not exaggerating the costs . Reduced frequency slows smal l
machinery ; reduced voltage can cause machines to burn out . Two days later ,
Izvestia quoted A . P . Kirilenko saying that several million more kilowatts o f
capacity would have to be installed during the Eleventh Five Year Plan tha n
had been installed during the Tenth if the economy were to be provided with a
dependable supply of power in 1981-85 . 6

-6 The Cost of Fixed Capita l

There are two sets of data that might yield information on the cost o f
capital stock in electric power . One is investment data, the other capital stoc k
data . Presumably, it should be possible to reconstruct either series from th e
other . Unfortunately, that is not true in the Soviet case .
Turn first to the fixed capital series . After the revaluation of capita l
stock in 1960, the Soviets published percentages from which one could calculat e
the value of capital stock in the " constant prices " of 1960 . Table 4 gives th e
estimated value of productive fixed capital in electric power at constant price s
in column 1 . This series covers the post-war period from 1950 to 1973 . I n
column 2 I list Robert Campbell ' s estimates of the value of capital stock whic h
appear to be based on the Soviet official series in column 1 . 7
In 1973, there was a revaluation of the book value of capital stock to brin g
these values closer to current replacement costs . After this revaluation, capita l
stock was valued approximately 20 percent higher than before . Again, the Sovie t
handbooks provided capital series--now at the " constant prices " of 1973 . Table 5
gives these series, together with Stanley Cohn ' s estimates of capital stock whic h
appear to be based on the two Soviet official series linking them by the 20 percen t
differential between them . 8
Using the data in Tables 4 and 5, we can calculate what was happening to th e
implied price of capacity to produce and deliver power in the so-called constan t
price series . In the 1960 constant-price series, the implied price of capacit y
actually rose from 127 rubles in 1950 to 231 .2 rubles in 1972 . In the 197 3
constant-price series, the implied price of capacity rose from 282 .9 rubles i n
1972 to 322 .2 rubles in 1979 . Where we have actual current-price values o f
capital stock, between 1972 and 1960, the cost of capacity in current rubles wa s
rising at an average rate of 4 .7 percent per year . Even using the constant price

-7 series for the Fifties and the Seventies, the implied price of capacity wa s
rising at 3 .3 percent per year for the whole period 1950 to 1979 . So, a t
least in the case of electric power, Coh n ' s confidence in the official Sovie t
series seems to be misplaced .
Would these numbers have been different, had we measured the capital cos t
of output rather than of capacity? Using Robert Campbell ' s estimates o f
power available for consumption of 255 .8 billion kwh . in 1960 and 887 .6 billio n
kwh . in 1975, the value of capital per unit of output grew from 3 .7 kopek s
in 1960 to 6 .75 kopeks in 1975, an increase of 4 .1 percent per year .
The changes in accounting values were distributed fairly evenly amon g
different types of capacity . Table 6 gives a breakdown of productive fixe d
capital assigned to thermal and hydroelectric production, transmission network ,
and other for the years 1970 and 1975 as well as the planned values for 1980 .
If we calculate the changes in costs per unit of the individual types of capacity ,
then, the cost of a unit of capacity was rising at the following rates : 3 .4 percen t
for total capacity, 2 .4 percent for hydroelectric capacity, 3 .2 percent for therma l
electric capacity, and 2 .7 percent for transmission capacity (assumed proportiona l
to the total length of lines .) The growing other category includes trainin g
facilities for nuclear engineers, some repair facilities, and possibly facilitie s
for the production of nuclear fuel elements .
The levels of cost in Table 6 coincide with other cost information that i s
available . A recent handbook on the construction of electric power station s
provides the estimate costs for 28 turbine, 38 co-generating, and six nuclea r
plants that were constructed or under construction during the 1970 ' s . Fo r
51 .8 million kilowatts of turbine capacity, the unit capital cost was 124 . 9
rubles per kilowatt ; for 3 .1 million kilowatts of co-generating capacity, th e
unit cost was 215 .3 rubles per kilowatt of power only, making no allocation for

-8 heat ; for 8 .6 million kilowatts of nuclear capacity, the unit capital cos t
was 213 .8 The capital costs of the transmission network network were almos t
as large as productinn capital costs, and they added a substantial incremen t
to the capital cost of delivering electric power .
The capital stock series provide measures of the average cost of past capita l
acquisitions . Presumably, when the cost of new capital goods rises, the ris e
brings up the cost of total capital stock slowly since most of the existin g
capital stock was purchased in earlier periods . So a rise in the cost o f
acquisitions of new capital should show up more strongly in current investmen t
costs . However, Soviet handbooks have published current-price measures fo r
newly commissioned capital for the years 1964-67 only . For other years ther e
are investment series described as being in constant prices again--in the price s
of 1969 for the last decade . Still, we can pursue the exercise of comparin g
investment allocations with capacity completions in various periods to see wha t
was happening to apparent investment cost . These numbers are likely to be les s
stable than the capital series since there are long time lags between appropriation s
of finance and completions of capacity, since I have made no adjustment fo r
changes in unfinished construction, and since capacity is completed in large units .
Unit investment costs are probably biased downward in the last year of each Fiv e
Year Plan and biased upward slightly in the other years by the tendency to finis h
capacities in the last year of a plan .
Still, with all these reservations, the investment data generally confirm th e
results of the capital stock calculations . Table 8 gives the allocation o f
investment, completion of capacity, and unit investment cost for 1970, 1975, an d
1977 . In that period, the unit investment cost of capacity rose from 251 ruble s
to 378 .5 rubles, at a rate of 6 percent per year ; the unit cost of thermal

-9 electric power rose from 146 to 234 rubles, and the unit cost of hydroelectri c
power fell from 412 .5 rubles to 318 rubles . There is one exception to the pattern
of rising capital costs . Although a unit of nuclear capacity was twice as costl y
as a unit of thermal capacity in 1975, the level of nuclear unit costs fel l
between 1970 and 1975 and was expected to fall still further in the estimat e
values of the 1976-80 plan . Nuclear capacity is discussed in detail later .
Since the existing capital stock series do contain implicit price inflation ,
I include an estimate of the value of capital stock at the constant prices of 197 3
in Table 7 .
Table 9 presents investment data for the period 1966-70, 1971-75 and 1976-80 .
According to these data, unit investment costs rose from 275 to 296 rubles betwee n
the Eighth and Ninth Five Year Plans and rose to 390 rubles during the Tent h
Five Year Plan (assuming that total investment in electric power was actuall y
about 19 .3 billion rubles .) This was an average rate of increase of 3 .6 percen t
per year . In these series, the calculated investment cost of all three types o f
power, non-nuclear thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric fell during the Ninth Fiv e
Year Plan and then wen up, if those sectors actually received the planned allocations .
(Since both sectors failed to meet targets, it is possible that the financing o f
investment was behind plan as well .) The authors of Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika
derive their own estimates of capital investment per kilowatt of capacity b y
correcting the data in Table 9 for a change in unfinished construction of 15 percen t
for thermal power and of 28 percent for hydroelectric power, taking account o f
10
capital initiated in the Sixties and completed in the period 1971-75 .

-10 -

Thermal
Hydroelectric
Network
Thermal heat network

1966-70

1971-7 5

154
337
56 .2
7 .5

20 4
35 5
62 . 8
9 .9

Their estimates imply a rise of 6 percent per year in the cost of therma l
electric capacity and a rise of 1 percent per year in the unit cost of hydro electric capacity .
In sum, unit capital costs seem to have been rising at 3 .3 percent pe r
year, based on the constant price capital stock data and 3 .6 to 6 percen t
based on the investment data . But the measured cost of nuclear power appear s
to be falling . Still, the shift toward nuclear and hydroelectric capacity i s
a factor in the over-all rise in unit investment costs since both types o f
capacity are more capital-intensive than traditional turbine plants .
If real capital stock has been growing less rapidly than we thought, the n
conventional measures of capital productivity are better than we thought previously .
Perhaps the most important implication of these numbers is that Alec Nove i s
right--at least in the case of this sector . The actual level of real capital formatio n
did fall in the last Five Year Plan, which must be a major factor in the declinin g
rate of growth .

Nuclear Power Production

Nuclear capacity was intended to play a major role in the Tenth Five Yea r
Plan . That plan called for an increase of nuclear capacity from 4 .7 to 18 . 5
million kilowatts ; it was to provide 19 percent of the growth in nationa l
capacity . But, although the growth of nuclear capacity was impressive, as Tabl e
10 shows, the industry fell far behind the original targets . New capacit y
completed during the Five Year Plan was only 56 .5 percent of the intended level .

-11 One consequence of the delay was the still-rising level of consumption o f
mazut by thermal electric plants . 1 1
Nominally, cost was not a factor in the disappointing performance . Delay s
were ascribed variously to delayed documentation from the project-making organizations ,
underfulfillment of construction plans, and lags in the production of reactor unit s
and turbine generators . Lags in equipment deliveries, in turn, followed fro m
delays in the completion of manufacturing capacity . For example, the Atommas h
plant at Volgodonsk, which has responsibility for the supply of the VVER-100 0
megawatt reactor, was only half completed at the end of 1980 . The Rovno nuclea r
plant in Kuznetsovsk in the Western Ukraine, slated to receive a VVER-100 0
reactor, installed a VVER-440 reactor as its first unit instead . An alarme d
report in Pravda on July 11, 1981 describes the situation at Volgodonsk in som e
detail as follows : (in paraphrase) the Volgodonsk plant is responsible fo r
the supply of eight 1000 megawatt reactors during the coming Five Year Pla n
(one-third of the total new nuclear capacity .) But the plant is short 400 workers ,
and worker turnover is high . Construction of everything in Volgodonsk is behin d
schedule . The plant itself is only half finished . In Volgodonsk, a city o f
150,000 people, there are facilities for only 26,000 . Pre-school and schoo l
needs are only two-thirds met, even on a double shift . Construction of facilitie s
in Volgodonsk requires 120 to 150 million rubles a year, but the Ministry o f
Power and Electrification has allocated only 85 million annually for this purpose .
The Ministry of Heavy Industry and Specialized Construction and the Ministry o f
the Food Industry are doing nothing . The Atommash factory has assigned 1500 o f
its own personnel to city construction, paying them the difference between th e
earnings of a construction worker and their 200-ruble monthly wage .

-12 Table 11 presents the estimate values of capital costs for several of th e
large nuclear power facilities, Chernoby l ' , Smolensk, Kursk, Kola, Armenia, an d
Beloyarsk . These, like other Soviet capital values are

" overnight capita l

costs " ; they make no calculation for interest foregone during construction .
For the 8 .6 million kilowatts of capacity represented by those plants, th e
estimate value of unit capital cost was 213 .8 rubles per kilowatt . The tota l
capital investment of 18 .4 billion rubles in these plant consisted of 7 .4 7
billion allocated to construction and assembly and 10 .9 billion allocated t o
machinery and equipment .
Table 12 presents the 1970 estimate values for individual units of capacit y
installed at Novovoronezh between 1964 and 1980 . These estimate costs projec t
costs of 127 rubles as the unit capital costs of the VVER-440 and 130 ruble s
for the VVER-1000 .

The Kola VVER-440 units installed two years later wer e

estimated to have a unit cost of 235 rubles a unit, a difference that seems
large, even in view of the remoteness of the Kola site . In 1975, Sheles t
12
estimated that the VVER-1000 had a unit capital cost of 170-200 rubles .

So

it seems likely that the Novovoronezh plant is underpriced at estimate costs .

However, I will ignore the shortcomings of estimate costs for the moment in orde r
to calculate what the total value of Soviet nuclear power capacity would be ,
evaluated at construction industry estimate costs . For each Five Year Plan, I
use the published estimate values for identified capacity and then price an y
remaining capacity for which I lack estimate values at an average unit cost o f
the identified capacity . These calculations result in the following estimates :

-13 -

Prior to 1970
1971-75
1976-80

New Capital Stoc k

(mil . rubles)
242
856 .56
1567 .5

Average Cos t
(rubles )
269 . 8
225 . 6
20 1

Total Value of Capital

2666

213

How badly do the estimate values of nuclear capital stock deviate fro m
current book values? One measure is the comparison with total investment in th e
nuclear power sector between 1966 and 1980 .

Prior to 1970
1971-75
1976-80

Capital Investment
(mil . rubles)
396
1760
4420

Investment per Uni t

(rubles )
69 5
46 3
56 7

Total Value of Investment

6576

52 6

Clearly, the total value of investment exceeds the estimate value of capita l
created by 3910 million rubles . It is two and one-half times larger . Th e
difference probably consists of three parts : partly completed capacity ,
possible understatement of true capital cost of generating facilities, an d
investment in the nuclear power industry other than power plant . Can we pu t
values on these items? Probably not, but there is additional informatio n
available . The value of unfinished construction in electric power is 5,51 8
in 1979 ; it was about 5711 in 1980 . Nuclear capacity constituted 16 percen t
of total capacity in electric power last year . It was planned to be 34 .5 percen t
of new capacity during the coming Five Year Plan . So we can estimate tha t
unfinished nuclear capacity amounted to 883 - 1904 million rubles . Using th e
mid-point of those two numbers as the approximate value of unfinished construction ,
we can estimate the amount of past investment in the nuclear sector to b e
6576 less 1393, or about 5183 million rubles . This value would imply a uni t

-14 capital cost of 286 rubles per kilowatt for the cost of past capital .
Finally, in Tables 13-16 we have the estimate values of capital cost s
used in drawing up the new Five Year Plan . Using the estimated values o f
unit capital cost of nuclear power in Table 13, we find that, at curren t
estimate values, existing nuclear facilities would be worth about 4420 millio n
rubles, or about 66 percent more than historical estimate costs .

Capital Costs in the New Five Year Pla n

We can use the estimate values in Tables 12-16 to estimate the approximat e
planned cost of capital construction for electric power in the next Five Yea r
Plan . These estimates are very approximate because I have not done a carefu l
job of locating new capacity by region . At Gosplan estimate costs, the pla n
for power generation would cost 15 billion rubles--approximately 5 .9 billion
for nuclear, 4 billion for hydroelectric, and 5 .1 billion for thermal electri c
power . Using Gosplan norms, they are planning to provide another 9 .9 billion
rubles for network and other capital costs, or a total of 24 .9 billion ruble s
for electric power . This amount would be approximately 29 percent larger tha n
the approximately 19 .3 billion rubles actually spent between 1976 and 1980 .
Using the past ratio of network and other costs to production costs, I calculat e
that the new Five Year Plan would require at least 13 .4 billion rubles in
network and other costs, for a total capital cost in 1980 rubles of 28 .4 billio n
rubles . Finally, we need to add in the additional financing required if th e
unit cost of capital continues to rise at the past rate of at least 3 .3 percent .
Taking account of price increase, the accumulated total for acquisition o f
capital goods in electric power would have to total 31 .4 billion . This numbe r
is a full 63 percent higher than actual investment expenditure during the Tent h
Five Year Plan . It would require a shift of resource

-15 Five Year Plan . It would require a shift of resources away from othe r
sectors towards electric power .
In sum, what have I learned in this investigation? First, the cost of powe r
capacity has been increasing at an annual rate of at least 3 .3 percent per year .
Secondly, the amount of real capital investment in electric power actually fel l
during the Tenth Five Year Plan . This factor alone is sufficient to explain th e
slow-down in the growth of that sector . If real capital investment in othe r
sectors changed in a similar manner, then investment may be playing a muc h
larger role in the current decline in Soviet growth rates than we appreciate d
heretofore . Finally, the shift toward nuclear and hydroelectric power wil l
make heavier demands on planned investment . Whether the new plans will be me t
is another whole story .

FOOTNOTE S
1.

Cohn ' s comment and Nove ' s reply appear in Soviet Studies, Vol . 33, No . 2
(April 1981), pp . 296-301 .

2.

M . Styrikovich, " Present Day Problems in Planning the Development o f

Electrification, " Izvestia, June 1, 1980, p . 3

3.

N . A . Tikhonov, " Basic Guidelines for the Economic and Social Developmen t
of the USSR in 1981-85 and in the Period up to 1990 , " Pravda, February 2 8
1981, pp . 2-4 .

4.

A . A . Trotskii, " Basic Trends in Electric Energy Development under Condition s

of the Future Fuel Balance , " Elektricheskie stantsii, December 28, 1978, p . 11-21 .

5.

M . Styrikovich, op

6.

Izvestia, June 3, 1980, p . 2 .

7.

The 1974 edition of Narodnoye khoziaistvo gives a value of 40 .55 billion

rubles for 1972 as the accounting value on the books of producing unit s
of electric power capital stock .

8.

Unpublished estimates by Stanley Cohn, provided courtesy of the author .

9.

Stroitel'stvo teplovykh i atomnykh elektrostantsii, Moscow : Stroiizdat, 197 9

. cit ., p . 3 .

10. Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika,

Moscow : Energiia, 1980, p . 58 .

11. A . A . Makarov, " Problems of Power Engineering, " Ekonomika i organizatsii a

promyshlennogo proizvodstva March 1981, pp . 16-39 .
12.

V . A . Shelest, Regional ' nye energo-ekonomicheskie problemy SSSR, Moscow :

Nauka, 1975 .

TABLE 1

ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT AND CAPACIT Y

198 0
OUTPUT
(bil . kwh .)

Total

Thermal electric stations

1295
(1293)
1114 .5

CAPACITY
(mil . kwt . )

26 7
(260 )
214 . 5

of which :
Nuclear
Non-nuclear Turbine

70 .5
1036

12 . 5
(12 .3 )
192 . 4

including :
Condenser KES

694 est

118 . 4

Heat and Power TETS

342 est

74

Non-turbine (Diesel)
Hydroelectric stations

Total Heat Production, All Sources

8
177 .5

9. 6
52 . 5

2262 mil Gca l

of whic h
TETS

1150 mil Gca l

(Lower output and capacity numbers in parentheses are used in later article s
in Elektricheskie stantsii . )
Sources : " Itogi razvitiia elektroenergetiki za 1980 godu i zadachi na 1981, "
Elektricheskie stantsii, January , 1981, pp . 2-4, " Razvitie elektroenergetik i
v odinnadtsatoi piatiletke, " Elektricheskie stantsii, May, 1981, pp 2-5 .

TABLE 2

ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT AND CAPACIT Y

BY REPUBLI C

OUTPU T
(bil . kwh .)
1970
1975

1980P

USSR

740 .9

1038 .0

1295

RSFSR

470 .2

639 .9

Ukraine

137 .6

Belorussia

1980

CAPACITY
(mil . kwt . )
1970
197 5
166 .2

217 . 2

801 .2

105 .1

132 . 5

194 .5

237 .9

27 .9

38 . 2

15 .1

26 .7

33 .4

3 .7

5. 6

Uzbekistan

18 .3

33 .6

31 .5

4 .7

6. 7

Kazakhstan

34 .8

52 .4

67 .8

8 .8

11 . 5

9 .0

11 .6

14 .6

2 .1

128 . 6

12 .0

14 .6

15

2 .7

3. 0

Lithuania

7 .4

9 .0

11 .3

1 .5

2. 1

Moldavia

7 .6

13 .7

15 .4

1 .7

2. 3

Latvia

2 .7

2 .9

4 .4

1 .2

1.6

Kirgizia

3 .5

4 .3

9 .0

1 .0

2. 3

Tadzhikistan

3 .2

4 .6

14 .4

0 .8

1.8

Armenia

6 .1

9 .1

13 .4

1 .7

2. 5

Turkmen

1 .8

4 .4

6 .8

0 .7

1. 2

Estonia

11 .6

16 .7

18 .9

2 .6

3. 2

Georgia
Azerbaidzhan

Source :

Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika .

Moscow :

Energiia,

1980, pp .

60-61

TABLE 3

NEW CAPACITY IN THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY

(mil . kwt . )

1971-75

1976-80 Plan

1976-80

1981-85 Pla n

Total

57 .5

71 .0

49 .5

71

Thermal electric stations

44 .6

43 .7

34

34

Condenser

31 .2

24 .9

15 . 7

TETS

13 .4

16 .3

14 . 2

Nuclear

3 .8

13 .8

7 .8

Hydro electric

9 .1

13 .5

incl .

12

24-2 5
12

Source : Energetika SSSR v 1976-80 godakh . Moscow : Energiia, 1977, p . 22 0

" Razvitie elektroenergetiki v odinnadtsatoi piatiletke , " Elektricheskie stantsii ,
May, 1981, pp . 2-4 .

TABLE 4

PRODUCTIVE FIXED CAPITAL IN ELECTRIC POWER AT CONSTANT PRICES OF 196 0

(Billion Rubles )

January 1
of Year

Soviet Official

1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973

2 .5
2 .8
3 .3
3 .7
4 .4
5 .3
6 .4
7 .9
8 .8
9 .1
9 .5
11 .9
13 .3
14 .9
17 .6
19 .9
22 .8
24 .6
26 .9
30 .0
32 .9
36 .1
40 .2
43 .5

Campbell

2 .8

4 .3
5 .1
6 .0
7 .4
8 .2
9 .3
9 .5
12 .3
13 .4
15 .0
17 .7
20 .2
22 .8
25 .3
27 .4
30 .7
33 .4
36 .9
40 .7
44 .0

Implied Price *
(Rubles )

12 7
12 7
13 1
12 9
13 4
14 2
14 7
16 3
16 4
153 . 5
160 . 8
17 8
17 9
18 1
18 9
19 2
19 8
20 0
20 4
210 . 5
21 4
21 7
23 1

Soviet official series are estimated from the share of electric power in tota l
industrial capital stock times productive fixed capital in industry (January 1
of each year, constant prices of 1960 .) Campbell series are from : Rober t
Campbell, Trends in the Soviet Oil and Gas Industry, Baltimore : Johns Hopkins ,
1975 and Robert Campbell, Basic Data on Soviet Energy Branches, Rand ,
December 1979 .
* Implied price is estimated as the value of capital stock per unit of capacity .

TABLE 5

PRODUCTIVE FIXED CAPITAL IN ELECTRIC POWER AT OFFICIAL CONSTANT PRICES OF 197 3

(Billion Rubles )

*
End of Year
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

Soviet Official

44 .37
48 .79
52 .70
56 .09
59 .94
64 .60
68 .59
72 .98
77 .76
82 .24

Cohn Estimates
9. 8
11 . 6
13 . 4
15 . 8
18 . 7
20 . 7
22 . 8
25 . 2
27 . 5
30 . 3
33 . 4
37 . 1
40 .9
45 .0
48 .6
52 . 7
56 .3
59 .9
63 .9
78 .8
84 .6

Implied Pric e
(Rubles )

265 . 9
267 . 0
278 . 2
286 . 8
291 . 8
297 . 0
300 . 0
306 . 9
316 . 8
322 .2

Soviet official series are estimated from the share of electric power in tota l
industrial capital stock times productive fixed capital in industry (end o f
year, constant prices of 1973 .) Cohn series are unpublished estimates provide d
by the author .
* Implied price is estimated as the value of capital stock per unit of capacity .

TABLE 6

STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIVE FIXED CAPITAL IN ELECTRIC POWE R

(Billion Rubles )
an d
(Implied Price )
End of Year Total

Hydro

Thermal
Incl .
Nuclea r

Nuclear*

Network

Othe r

1970

35 .0
210 r

6 .6
210 r

14 .0
104 r

.24
270 r

12 .9
.029 r

1.5

1975

54 .0
248 r

9 .6
237 r

21 .5
121 .5r

1 .10
226 r

20 .1
.033 r

2.8

1980P

76 .6
287 r

13 .7
261 r

28 .1
137 r

2 .69
201 r

26 .6
.035 r

8.2

Source :
Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika . Moscow : Energiia, 1980 ; slightl y
different figures are also in Energetika SSSR v 1976-80 godakh . Moscow :
Energiia, 1977 .
* Thornton estimates described later .

TABLE 7

ELECTRIC POWER CAPACITY AND CAPACITY-DERIVED CAPITAL STOC K

End of Year

Capacity
Capital Stoc k
(Million kilowatts) (Billion rubles )

1955

37 .246

10 . 7

1960

66 .721

19 . 1

1965

115 .033

33 . 0

1970

166 .150

47 . 7

1971

175 .365

50 . 3

1972

186 .239

53 . 4

1973

195 .560

56 . 1

1974

205 .442

58 . 9

1975

217 .484

62 . 4

1976

228 .307

65 . 5

1977

237 .805

68 . 2

1978

245 .441

70 . 4

1979

255 .282

73 . 2

1980

267*

76 . 6

Source :
Capacity and 1973 Capital Stock from Narodnoye Khoziaistvo ,
various years . Other capital stock figures estimated using th e
constant price of capital of 1973 .
* 1980 capacity from Elektricheskie stantsii, May 1981 .

TABLE 8

UNIT INVESTMENT COST IN ELECTRIC POWE R

Total

196 0
Investment
(Million Rubles )
New Capacity
(Million Kwt . )
Implied Cost
(Rubles )
197 0
Investment
(Million Rubles )
New Capacity
(Million Kwt . )
Implied Cost
197 5
Investment
(Million Rubles )
New Capacity
(Million Kwt . )
Implied Cost
(Rubles )
197 7
Investment
(Million Rubles )
New Capacity
(Million Kwt . )
Implied Cost
(Rubles )

Thermal
Incl .
Nuclea r

Hydro

Network*

Othe r

1551 .5

713 .7

657 .8

18 0

168 7
7 .4 5
19 9

3103
12 .36
251

3747
12 .0
312

3596
9 .5
378 .5

10 .64
146

1888 .5
8 .5
222

1729 .7
7 .4
234

1 .73
412 .5

704
3 .54

31 . 8
.020 7

798
34 . 7

199

.023 0

665

791

2 .1
318

35 6

40 6

31 . 9
24 8

*Network capacity is estimated from transmission lines (Km . )

Source : Total investment from Norodnoye Khoziastvo, various years ; structur e
of investment from A . A . Chernukhin, Iu . N . Flakserman . Ekonomika energetik i
SSSR .
Moscow : Energiia, 1980 .

TABLE 9

CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN ELECTRIC ENERGY CAPACITY BY FIVE YEAR PLA N

(Billion Rubles )

Sector

1966-70

1971-7 5

1976-8 0

22

26

17
57 . 5
295 .7

21 *
49 . 5
39 0

Non-Nuclea r Thermal 7 .05

35 .4
New Capacit y
Implied Cost
199

7 .04
41 . 2
17 1

7 .5 4
34
22 2

Nuclea r
New Capacit y
Implie d Cost

695

1 .7 6
3. 8
46 3

4 .4 2
7. 8
56 7

Hydr o
New Capacity
Implied Cost

3 .0 6
8 .4
364

3 .1 9
9. 1
35 0

4 .1 6
12
34 6

5 .85

7 .15

6 .7 6

Heat Transmission

.40

.66

.7 0

Other

.45

Electric Investment 17 . 2
All Industrie s
Other Industries
Electric Powe r
New Capacit y
Implied Cost

Network

Source :

3 .5
14 .0
51
274 .5

.39 6
.57

Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika .

2 .2

Moscow :

2 .4 2

Energiia, 1980, pp . 58-9 .

*Reported total investment in 1976-80 sums to approximately 19 . 3

billion rubles in the constant price s of 1973 .
I have used that
number to estimate implied cost .

TABLE 1 0
NUCLEAR POWER OUTPUT AND CAPACITY

1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

CAPACIT Y
(Mil . Kwt .)

OUTPUT
(Bil . KWH )

.3
.3
.3
.5
.5
.9
.9
1 .3
1 .8
3 .2
3 .7
4 .7
6 .1
7 .1
8 .1
9.6
12 .5*

. 1
1.4
1.7
1.8
2.9
2.3
3. 7
3. 9
7.3
11 . 7
18 . 0
20 . 2
25 . 0
34 . 0
45
70 .5

Sources : Output from Teploenergetika i teplotekhnika . Moscow : Energiia ,

1980 and Elektricheskie stantsii, May, 1981 ; Capacity from dates give n
in V . Iu Steklov .
Razvitie elektroenergeticheskogo khoziaistva SSSR .
Moscow : Energiia, 1979 and, for 1978 and 1979, various issues o f
Elektricheskie stantsii .
These numbers differ slightly from thos e
in Robert Campbell, Basic Data on Soviet Energy Branches . Rand : Decembe r
1979 .
*The 1980 capacity figure given in Elektricheskie stantsii in May 198 1
is 12 .3 . I have identified new nuclear capacity amounting to a tota l
capacity of 11 .6 .

TABLE 1 1

CAPITAL COST OF INDIVIDUAL ELECTRIC POWER PLANT S

Nuclear Plant s
Chernobyl'
Smolensk
Kursk
Kola

RBMK-1000
RBMK-1000

RBMK-1000

2000

500

379 .9

155 .7

224 .2

19 0

2000

500

396 .6

166 .7

229 .9

198 . 5

2000

500

349 .4

153 .2

196 .2

17 5

440/
22 0
440/
22 0
100

206 .7

105 .8

100 .9

23 5

159 .74

262 . 5

179

332 . 5

VVER-440

880

Armenia VVER-405,410

815

Beloyarsk AMB-100,200
BN-600

900

205 .64
299 .1

45 .9
120 .1

These numbers refer to estimate values used in construction .

Source :
Stroitel ' stvo teplovykh j atomnvkh elektrostantsii, Moscow : Stroiizdat ,
1979, p . 894 .

TABLE 1 2
ESTIMATE VALUES OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR NOVOVORONEZH NUCLEAR POWE R
Unit

Capacit y
(Megawatts)

Unit Capita l
Cos t
(Rubles)

Implied Tota l
Cos t
(Mil . Rubles )

-1

210

326

68 .46

-2

365

186

67 .89

-3

440

127 (235)

55 .88 (103 .4 )

-4

440

127 (235)

55 .88 (103 .4 )

-5

1000

130 (200)

Source :

130 .

Elektrifikatsiia SSSR . Moscow : Energiia, 1970 .

Numbers in parentheses refer to unit costs at Kola for -3 and -4 an d

a unit cost from V . A . Shelest . Regional ' nye energo-ekonomicheski e
problemy SSSR . Moscow : Nauka, 1975 .

(200 . )

TABLE 1 3

PRODUCTION COSTS OF ELECTRIC POWER : ESTIMATE VALUES USED IN PLANNIN G

Power Station Sit e

Hydroelectri c
30 0

4400

0 .2

0. 1

Cente r

24 0

6700

0 .36 4

Ural s

25 0

6700

0 .37 9

Siberi a

27 0

6700

0 .41 0

Siberi a

Nuclea r

GRES, ga s
Cente r

12 5

313

6700

0 .20 1

Surgu t

16 5

313

6700

0 .26 6

14 0

339

6700

0 .23 0

16 0

328

6700

Cente r

15 0

323

6700

0 .24 5

Ural s

15 0

323

6700

0 .245

GRES, Ekibastuz coa l

GRES, Kansk-Achinsk coa l
Siberi a

0.263

GRES, Kuznets coa l

Source : A . A . Trotskii, U .S .S .R . Gosplan, " Basic Trends in Electrical Energ y

Development under Conditions of the Future Fuel Balance , " Elektricheskie stantsii ,
December 1978, pp . 1-18 .

TABLE 1 4

COSTS OF ELECTRIC POWE R

IN CENTRAL USS R

Source

Capital Investment
Per Unit of Capacity
(rubles/kwt)

Operating Cost Total Cos t

of Output
of Outpu t
(Sebestoimost ' )
(kopeks/kwh)
(kopeks/kwh )

Hydroelectri c
in Siberia

498 .7

0 .355

1 .4 6

Nuclea r
in the Center

380

0 .697

1 .1 5

GRES, gas-fire d
in the Center

328

0 .854

1 .0 8

407

0 .753

1 .3 2

374 .8

0 .624

1 .2 2

389 .5

0 .672

1 .2 8

343 .5

1 .075

1 .35

in Surgut
GRES, coal-fire d
in Ekibastuz
in Kansk-Achinsk basin
GRES, Kuznets coa l
in Center

Source : A . A . Trotskii, USSR Gosplan, " Basic Trends in Electrical Energ y

Development under Conditions of the Future Fuel Balance, " Elektricheski e
stantsii, December 1978, pp . 1-18 .

TABLE 1 5

COSTS OF ELECTRIC POWE R

DELIVERED TO THE URAL S

Capital Investmen t
Per Unit o f
Capacit y
(rubles/kwt)

Operating Cos t Total Cos t

of Outpu t
of Outpu t
(Sebestoimost ' )
(kopeks/kwh)
(kopeks/kwh )

Hydroelectri c
in Siberia

466 .5

0 .331

1 .3 8

Nuclea r
in the Urals

391 .5

0 .709

1 .1 9

GRES, ga s
in Surgut

324 .9

0 .654

1 .0 8

GRES, coa l
in Ekibastuz

287 .0

0 .520

0 .9 6

in Kansk-Achinsk basin 360 .3

0 .630

1 .1 8

0 .744

1 .02

Source

GRES, Kuznets coa l

in the Urals

274 .5

Source : A . A . Trotskii, USSR Gosplan, " Basic Trends in Electrical Energy Developmen t
under Conditions of the Future Fuel Balance , " Elektricheskie stantsii, December 1978 ,
pp . 1-18 .

TABLE 1 6
4

COSTS OF ELECTRIC POWE R

IN SIBERI A
Source

Capital Investmen t
Per Unit of Capacit y

Total Cos t
of Outpu t

(rubles/kwt)

Operating Cos t
of Outpu t
(Sebestoimost ' )
(kopeks/kwh)

Hydroelectri c
in Siberia

300

0 .100

0 .9 2

Nuclea r
in Siberia

413

0 .740

1 .2 5

GRES,coa l
in Ekibastuz

278 .2

0 .508

0 .9 3

in Kansk-Achinsk basin 213 .8

0 .443

0 .74

(kopeks/kwh )

Source : A . A . Trotskii, USSR Gosplan, " Basic Trends in Electrical Energ y

Development under Conditions of the Future Fuel Balance, " Elektricheski e
stantsii, December 1978, pp . 1-18 .