Some experts say Belarus still has not recovered form the catastrophe at Chernobyl nuclear power station. But 22 years after the terrible explosion of April 1986 Belarusian authorities decided to build country’s own nuclear station. This decision has provoked a big debate in the society, but the authorities seem to intend to fulfill their nuclear project with no regard to the public opinion.

The fear of nuclear energy is still strong among Belarusians even 22 years after the Chernobyl disaster. Some years ago people were crazy about buying out iodine-based medicines (they help to fight consequences of nuclear explosion for human health) following rumors about a break-down at Ignalina nuclear power station, which is situated in Lithuania just some kilometers away from Belarusian border. 

“Chernobyl Way” held in Minsk every year to commemorate an anniversary of the disaster is still one of the most mass opposition rallies. A lot of politicians and scientists say that the authorities try to hide the problems of contamination of some territories in the southern part of Belarus, which were mostly polluted after the Chernobyl explosion. 

In particular, a group of scientists headed by professor Yury Bandazheuski studied the effect of small doses of radiation on human organism. According to the results of their research, radiation that gets into a human body destroys basic systems of interior organs. Bandazheuski believes that the population of Belarus, especially children, feels the consequences of Chernobyl explosion every day. The research results contradict the point of view of the authorities and “official” scientists who say that small doses of radiation make no harm to people’s health and who promote restoring the agriculture activities on the territories polluted after 1986. 

Professor Ivan Nikitchanka also doubts these plans of the state. He has proved that the level of pollution with radiation of the area around Chernobyl is very high and he is sure there is a necessity for reforms of agriculture technologies. 

But the head of Belarusian state, being the main supporter and an initiator of the idea of building of a nuclear station, is sure that arguments of his opponents are nothing but political games. 

“Our opponents try to gain political dividends while speculating on “nuclear phobia” of some Belarusian citizens”, Aliaksandr Lukashenka said not long ago at the meeting with students of Belarusian State University. 

According to Belarusian president, building of a nuclear station will allow to decrease by one third the necessity of Belarus to import energy supplies, and thus will make the country more independent form importing gas from Russia. 

“A Historical Decision” 

The final decision of building of Belarusian nuclear station was made 15 January, 2008 at the meeting of the Council of State Security. President Lukashenka said that a nuclear program is a strategic goal and Belarus feels sure about its necessity. 

The press-service of a Belarusian leader was pathetic about it, stating that “this decision has a historical character, as economic, energetic and political independence of future generations of the Belarusians depends on it”. 

Aliaksandr Lukashenka sounds very optimistic about the project. “Today we form the basis of functioning of a Belarusian state in conditions, when the global problem of exhausting of oil and gas on the Earth is becoming more and more severe. I think future generations will evaluate our decision”, Belarusian president said. 

The exact place for a Belarusian nuclear station will be defined by the end of 2008. Now there are several variants, but two of them seem to be the most probable. Both of them are situated in Mahiliou Region in the east of Belarus. 

According to Andrei Rykau, “BelNIPIenergapram” research institution director, the research work at one of the places planned for a nuclear station is going on for a year already. This shows that the decision to build a station was made long before it went public. 

Uladzimir Siamashka, deputy prime minister of Belarus, said the building of the nuclear station can start as early as the beginning of 2009. “We should lay the first stone on January 1”, Siamashka promised at the meeting at the Ministry of Energy this February. 

According to the plans of Belarusian government the first block of the nuclear station should be built by 2016, followed by the second one in 2018. The price of the station construction is evaluated at 4 billion U.S. dollars. It is planned to finance it with the help of foreign bank loans.

Nuclear Station Of Today, Technologies Of Yesterday

According to the plans by 2020 30% of Belarusian electrical energy will be produced by the nuclear station. 

“Building of a modern and safe nuclear station will ensure our country with cheap electricity”, Aliaksandr Lukashenka promised to Belarusian students. 

“The decision of the government is absolutely right and substantial”, Mihail Malko of United Institute of Energy and Nuclear Research of National Academy of Science says. 

He sees the principle aspect in favor of nuclear station in economic safety, because “in case of a blockade from the gas-supplying states our economy will be able to stand it”. Mihail Malko regards the nuclear station not less than a “rescue”. 

“Building of a nuclear station is a normal process for a state if we take into consideration that the oil and gas prices go high, and those resources become exhausting. But the question is that Belarus tries to fit modern nuclear technology into old economic system that has a lot of “heritage” from the Soviet past”, Tacciana Manionak, an energy market expert and a journalist, says. 

“The main problem is that Belarusian economy is not reformed. The demand for energy is influenced by gross output figures that are not determined economically, but set administratively. At the same time, Belarus has a powerful energy system that is capable of producing the amount of energy needed by the country. The problem is that our energy system is old and not effective, it needs to be reformed”, Tacciana Manionak says. 

So, a nuclear station will be integrated into an old and not effective model of energy system, that is still “Russian gas-addict”. 

A New Dependence Instead Of An Old One 

Not everyone is so enthusiastic about Belarusian nuclear program. The thing is that Belarus has no raw materials for running it, and there will still be a need to buy uranium abroad. Besides, the country has no specialists of its own to build and to run a nuclear enterprise. 

“We lack qualified personnel to be hired at positions of a Head Engineer or a Senior Engineer of Reactor Section”, Mikalay Hrusha, deputy general manager of United Institute of Energy and Nuclear Research, said in his interview to BelaPAN news agency. 

Now Belarus plans to hire professionals from Russia, Ukraine or Lithuania for key positions at the Belarusian nuclear power station and to start educating specialists of its own. 

There is a choice of three foreign companies that can be involved in building of the station, namely Westinghouse-Toshiba, Areva and Atomstroyexport. Jaraslau Ramanchuk, a Belarusian economist, thinks that the decision of the Belarusian government can be politically-motivated and it can be made in favor of Atomstroyexport Russian company. 

“Belarusian officials talk about energy safety as our country is 100% dependent on Russia. But if the choice is made in favor of a Russian company there will not be more independence, just the forms and mechanisms of dependence will change. So the task Lukashenka gave to his experts will not be fulfilled”, Ramanchuk says.

Minus Human Expenditures?

There is another aspect that question economic ideas of nuclear energy promoters. Official calculations of costs of nuclear energy plants usually include only direct expenditures on building and running a station. Yury Varonezhcau, former secretary of Chernobyl commission of Supreme Council of USSR, is sure that low cost of nuclear energy is nothing but a myth. 

“The methods of defining of nuclear energy costs are quite intricate and sly, they don’t take into consideration the cost of dismantling of a station, despite of it being equal to half a cost of building of a station. You can dismantle ordinary power-generating plant and use the remains to build roads, but after dismantling of a nuclear station you must take care of storing every brick safely”, Yury Varonezhcau says. 

Thus, indirect expenditures of a society to compensate the impact on environment and people’s health, emergencies, waste deactivation and dismantling of a station should be taken into consideration. In this case nuclear energy is not so cheap, the opponents of building of a station say.

The Lesson Of Chernobyl

But the main argument of those who don’t like the idea of using nuclear energy is still the issue of safety for environment and people’s health. It is especially an issue in Belarus. 

“We live in a country that suffered so much from the Chernobyl disaster. And explosion of 1986 should be a good lesson for us not to play games with nuclear energy. Besides, Europe still officially considers nuclear energy as not safe for environment”, Valery Dranchuk, a Belarusian ecologist, admits. 

Yahor Fiadzushyn, a nuclear physician, also does not believe when he is told nuclear energy today has become much safer than it used to be during the Soviet times. 

“The program of building of a nuclear station will cost our country several billion dollars, but it is not likely to be fulfilled successfully. And afterwards a nuclear lobby will blackmail our government with the possibility of a new disaster and ask for more and more investments. This will become a new burden for Belarusian people who still suffer from Chernobyl. A myth about benefits of building a nuclear station can be destroyed by correct calculations”, a scientist believes. 

His opinion appeared among the others at a newly created atomby.net web-site, which claims to represent an “anti-nuclear campaign of Belarus”, one of the civil initiatives that aims at stopping nuclear energy production. 

Andrei Aliaksandrau

[email protected]