Feasibility Study of RNPP (Rooppur Nuclear Power Project) in Bangladesh


Bangladesh is densely populated country with a population of 16 core and small area about 1, 47,570 Square-Kilometer. Among these large population only a few section are taking the blessings of power. But now at a stage government can’t give the power even to that special section. Because day by day population is increasing and also power demands is also increasing. Governments are trying to meet up the power crisis in Bangladesh by taking various steps. Like small (10-20MW) power plants, IPP, Rental power plant etc. But these are not a permanent solution. More over these rental and IPP are mainly oil and gas based, which are very costly and not very efficient. Besides these government are going with coal based power station and small scale renewable energy. But coal based power station are required very large space, its initial cost is high and create serious environmental threat. Renewable energy is not yet developed and its efficiency is very poor. Though there are many problems and threats but Nuclear Power Plant can be a permanent solution for Bangladesh. Bangladesh government is now going for nuclear power plant and recently they have taken a project called Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant Project (RNPP) which is already approved in the cabinet meeting. The purpose of this paper is to study the feasibility of RNPP.

Share and Cite:

T. Ali, I. Arnab, S. Bhuiyan, A. Rahman, I. Hossain and M. Shidujaman, "Feasibility Study of RNPP (Rooppur Nuclear Power Project) in Bangladesh," Energy and Power Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 4B, 2013, pp. 1526-1530. doi: 10.4236/epe.2013.54B289.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html
[2] World Nuclear Association. Another drop in nuclear generation World Nuclear News, 05 May 2010.
[3] Key World Energy Statistics 2007. International Energy Agency. 2007. Retrieved 2008-06-21
[4] “Nuclear Power Plants Information. Number of Reactors Operation Worldwide,” International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
[5] “World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements,” World Nuclear Association. 2008-06-09. Archived from the original on March 3, 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
[6] “From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future,” International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
[7] Kragh, Helge. Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 286. ISBN 0691095523.
[8] World Nuclear Association. Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors.
[9] David Baurac, “Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool,” Logos (Argonne National Laboratory) Vol.20, No.1, 2002, Retrieved 2007-11-01.
[10] Black, Richard (2011-04-12). “Fukushima: As Bad as Chernobyl?” Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
[11] “Japan's unfolding disaster 'bigger than Chernobyl,” New Zealand Herald. 2 April 2011.
[12] “Explainer: What went wrong in Japan's nuclear reactors,” IEEE Spectrum. 4 April 2011.
[13] “Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring,” International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011.
[14] Rogovin, pp. 153.
[15] “Magnitude 9.0 – near the East coast of Honshu, Japan,” Earthquake.usgs.gov,Retrieved 17 March 2011.
[16] “Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami,” World Nuclear News. 24 March 2011. Retrieved 24 March 2011.
[17] Eben Harrell (August 15, 2011). “Bury Our Nuclear Waste — Before It BuriesUs,” TIME.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.