Belarusian nuclear power plant: problems and prospects

The necessity of construction of the Belarusian nuclear power plant is presented as a key element of ensuring national energy security. In fact, the decision of the Government of Belarus sets grounds for further long-term energy dependence on the  Russian Federation  and threatens the environment of the region.

On January 15, 2008 the Security Council of Belarus made the decision to build a nuclear power plant in the country. Preliminary expert assessment on this issue was done a long time ago, when it became obvious that the market policies of the government led to complete dependence on Russian expensive raw materials. 

Increasing world prices for oil and gas did not come as a surprise for the Minsk authorities. Serious conflicts (informational rather than economic in nature) associated with the failure of inter-state accounts for the delivered fuel, periodically comes up in relations between Russia and Belarus since 2004. 

Attempts to diversify the supply of energy face objective geopolitical challenges. There are virtually no other exporters of hydrocarbons in the region, except Russia (and the direct delivery of Central Asian gas is extremely difficult because of the monitoring campaign of the Russian pipelines by Gazprom), the internal reserves of Belarus are small, and even in the long run will not be able to cover the needs of domestic industry and energy. It would seem that the construction of nuclear power plant is a reasonable and necessary step in this situation. However let us look into several aspects of the problem: environmental, economic and geopolitical. 

Stay healthy 

Government experts often cite the fact that nuclear power is one of the least-polluting ways to generate electricity. The legacy of the Ukrainian Chernobyl NPP, however, is as follows. 

According to the IAEA, the Chernobyl accident in 1986 generated 400 times more radioactive contamination, as was caused by the explosion of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima . As a result 116 thousand people had been resettled from the disaster zone. The territory of Belarus and the Belarusian people suffered the most. Cancer statistics shows: about 270 000 cancer cases registered and 93 000 cancer deaths are directly related to exposure to Chernobyl radiation. According to Academician of the National Academy of Sciences Mr. Nikitchenko only in the last 14 years, the increase of death rates over births has led to a reduction of population to more than 600 thousand people. 

It would seem logical if the national disaster and the complex demographic situation would have compelled the government to take up a very cautious approach with regard to the issues of nuclear energy. However the situation started to evolve following a completely different scenario. Following an order of the Head of State the arable land, where farming had been banned altogether, or severely limited, actively cultivated again, however «with the use of technologies designed to minimize the absorption by human body of radionuclides», as stated by government experts. 

Assurances of safety of such foods that supplied to all parts of the country are questionable. According to the Director of the Research Institute « Institute of Radiology » Mr. Podolyak, «products that are produced in the contaminated areas are consumed inside the  Republic of Belarus . They are not exported». 

Such an attitude towards its own citizens illustrates the degree of responsibility of authorities for its actions. Similarly it was decided to build a nuclear power station in Belarus , without a referendum. Officials did not even provide for a broader visibility of public consultations. 

The Belarusian Parliament also has not assessed properly this dubious decision. Members of the House of Representatives, which by law must protect the interests of their voters, unanimously supported the construction of the nuclear power plant. Local governments and community organizations, with rare exceptions, have not responded to the problems that threaten national security and health of Belarusian citizens. 

Former Judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus, Doctor of Law Mr. Pastukhov considers that Article 18 of the Constitution of Belarus, which states that «the Republic of Belarus aims to make its territory a nuclear-free zone» should not be interpreted only with regards to the renunciation of nuclear weapons, however also as a fundamental rejection of nuclear energy. In this case we are talking about a violation by the officials and members of the Parliament of the Basic Law. 

One of the main arguments of supporters of nuclear energy is the diversification of the raw material (structurally) of the electricity produced. Was that the case? 

Old trick is better than two new 

Choosing a contractor for the construction of nuclear power plants is already a political dilemma per se. This is an opportunity to buy new geopolitical allies, and strengthen ties with regular partners within the international community. In theory three concerns could take part in a tender: the Franco-German, American-Japanese and Russian. 

The Government of Belarus made its choice regarding the main contractor. It was the Russian company Atomstroiexport. US-Japanese group "Vestinghauz-Toshiba” had not taken part in the tender due to lack of legal documents regulating the cooperation with Belarus in this sphere. European Concern “Areva", according to government experts «builds too powerful reactors». Although the true reasons for choosing a contractor lied rather in the political arena. 

Long before the final decision to build its own nuclear power plant was made by the Belarusian authorities the Russian side very strongly recommended that the Belarusian Government does not tender, and immediately sign a contract with a Russian company. For this reason, as it is believed by analysts, Russia granted to Belarus a credit of $ 2.5 billion US dollars last year. The goal is clear - the cost of the work to be performed exceeds 5 billion US dollars and Belarus  will be compelled to use the services of Russian specialists to service the station, conducting the service and purchase from Russia the nuclear fuel. Russian scholars and politicians will have the opportunity to monitor the development of the Belarusian energy and to exert political pressure to make decisions good for them. 

An important nuance: the Russian nuclear power plants almost exclude the use of the fuel supplied by other contractors, in particular, because of the technological differences in the construction of nuclear power plants. A sad example was the incident at the Hungarian nuclear power plant «Pakshu», happened in 2003, when there was a release of radioactive gases. The reason turned out to be the use of German fuel supplies to a nuclear power plant, built in 1987 by the Soviet Union . More information about the problem of incompatibility of the fuel for nuclear power plants of different manufacturers is provided by an ex-Deputy of the Supreme Soviet, physicist Yuri Voronezhtsev. 

Obviously, the choice as a partner to build a nuclear power plant, of a Russian concern Atomstroiexport would further aggravate the energy and political dependence of Belarus on the Russian Federation . 

The relatively low cost of energy generated by nuclear power plants, also applies more to the field of mythology. As early as 2007 a Member of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences Mr. Timoshpolsky said, that our soft soils will increase the cost of building nuclear power plants by 25%. That is, it is possible to multiply by one fourth the estimated $ 5 billion to be allocated for the construction. 

Moreover, in the optimistic estimates put the cost of electricity however not the cost of the disposal of radioactive waste and dismantling of power after termination of employment. 

To grandpa living in the village: Konstanin Makarych 

What recommendations can be made vis-à-vis officials that make such decisions: 

- holding a people’s referendum on the issue, with previous extensive public consultation and regulatory guaranteed time for such consultations on the state television and radio stations and space in the Republican media for both supporters of nuclear power plants, and for the opponents of the concept. While excluding this procedure, the Belarusian government is in breach of the Aarhus Convention, to which  Belarus is a party since 1999. 

- Re-examine the question of accession to the international energy consortium of Lithuania ,   Latvia and  Poland , which will build Novoignalinskoy plant in Lithuania for further joint use. This can be a powerful catalyst for effective regional cooperation. Such an initiative was launched by ex-candidate for the President of Belarus Alexander Kazulin as early as 2007. In the autumn of 2007 the proposal was forwarded to the Belarusian officials. As an alternative to the development of Belarusian own atomic energy this proposal was voiced by the Head of the Chief Department for perspective development and investment of the Ministry of Energy of Belarus, Vladimir Bobrov, and the Prime Minister S. Sidorsky during talks with the President of Lithuania Adamkus. As a consequence, this concept was not considered by the Belarusian government. 

- Increase the share of natural gas in electricity generation, and look for ways to diversify it. Using natural gas as a raw material is still profitable, even with the current high prices for it. Thus,  Russia  and Ukraine  developed a gas turbine plant, operating on natural gas, which after modernization of power plants, could be added to the existing steam turbines and greatly increase the overall efficiency. 

- Consider the possibility of building together with the Baltic States and  Ukraine , of the so-called special-gas port terminals for transshipment of liquefied gas transported by sea. Consider purchase of liquefied gas (LPG) in the states of North Africa and  Europe in the pursuit of geo-economic diversification of the imported energy. 

- Develop cooperation within the framework of energy integration of the Baltic and Black Sea region and the EU, in particular, with the program «Eastern Partnership». 

- Ensure that in the future the issue of energy saving is solved not by setting limits on energy consumption, which could lead to so-called «fan mute», however by making offers of a package of conditions for potential investors to modernize the energy industry infrastructure through the process of privatization. 

Sergey Martselev, 

Political Analyst 

[email protected]