Crunched under increased energy prices and internationally isolated (Venezuela and Russia are the few exceptions), Belarus is planning to build a nuclear power plant to meet its energy needs, writes Anya Loukianova for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in an article “Belarus takes a second look at nuclear energy.”
That’s worrying. Not only should this bother Belarus’ neighbors, but this is a major concern for its citizens who in the aftermath of Chernobyl’s (Chornobyl) explosion – on April 26, 1986 – saw 23% of the country affected by the nuclear fall-out.
Two decades after the accident, the majority of the Belarusian people still don’t want nuclear power–28.3 percent approved of the nuclear plant project and 46.7 percent disapproved, according to a 2005 country-wide government poll DOC.
The three sites under consideration for the future nuclear plant are near Russia, Lithuania and Poland, in Mogilyov (2) and Grodno (1).
Loukianova provides the details:
Belarus’ authoritarian president Aleksandr Lukashenko is seeking to build a 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant to reduce the country’s reliance on imported energy sources, particularly Russian natural gas. His government has indicated that the plant, expected to cost $4 billion, will consist of two generation III water-cooled, water-moderated reactors.
Aside from ignoring the public sentiment which is highly against nuclear power plant construction, Lukashenko’s media campaign is shocking for its cynicism:
His public-relations campaign has centered on the idea that the reactors would be safer than those of Belarus’ heavily nuclear-reliant neighbors–Ukraine, Lithuania, and Russia.
Lukashenko’s insistence on going at it alone is puzzling. He hopes to raise the funding from international institutions and some friendly sponsor states, but $4 billion dollars is a lot of money, and the estimate is no doubt on the lower end of the final cost.
Perhaps recogmizing the volatility of the subject, Minsk is paying attention to the mood of its population. Here is how the regime has attempted to manage public opinion:
Oddly, although Lukashenko could move forward with his nuclear agenda without public consent, his government has carefully monitored public opinion on the issue. Data from the 2005 poll on the issue [see previously cited analysis DOC] has given the government clues about how to tailor its message in order to preempt and co-opt potential public opposition. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the government has repeatedly stressed IAEA support for the project–polling indicates that the Belarusian public trusts the information provided by the agency. Similarly, as polls have indicated that the public trusts scientists, Lukashenko has sought to actively (and bitterly) rebut anti-nuclear comments from Belarusian scientists opposed to his nuclear plans.
Loukianova is right: unless an organized front opposing Lukashenko’s nuclear ideas emerges, Belarus and its neighbors in Warsaw, Kyiv, Moscow, Riga, and Vilnus may soon find a new nuclear reactor in the region that is based on a Soviet design and ran by a government unaccountable to its people.
At a time when the Baltics are considering the replacement of the Soviet-designed Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania with a new one, we may criticize Minsk on environmental, technological and human rights grounds, but not on regional ones.
Besides, Ukraine plans to augment its Soviet-designed Khmelnytsk and Rivne NPPs with two new reactors, which scares me even more.
Finally, as a Ukrainian, I always wondered why Ukraine exported its electricity at below domestic prices.
I agree wholeheartedly with the observation in the last sentence – exporting below market prices is foolish; if anything, this has to do with institutional constraints in Ukraine.
But while I understand Belarus’ regional concerns, the question of safety remains. The way “accidents” are handled (or for that matter how accidents are prevented from happening in the first place) in closed societies/authoritarian states is not safe both for home populations or those who live across the border.
Still, there is definitely grounds for “scare” even though Ukraine is a freer state than Belarus. Its historical experience mandates that any new nuclear reactors are accompanied by the strictest of precautionary and maintenance practices.
[…] by Vitaliy A comment by Taras on an earlier post discussing Belarus’ intention to build a new nuclear reactor has reminded me about a piece I wrote a couple of months ago on the subject of energy independence, […]
I totally agree that the secretive nature, technological backwardness, and human rights/environmental abuses particular to autocratic regimes undermine safety.
We don’t need another Chernobyl.
[…] of different camps does not augur well for the future.” A similar conclusion was reached by Anya Loukianova writing about the opposition to Belarus’ renewed efforts to go […]
[…] the need for nuclear power. Belarus, one of the most Chernobyl disaster affected countries, is seeking to go nuclear again. On the subject of Belarus, the EU just lifted its ban on the country’s leadership […]