Energy security of Belarus and a nuclear power plant
What is considered to be a turning point in the planning of the construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus is Decree No. 399 of 2005 on “the concept of energy security and improvement in energy independence of the Belarusian People’s Republic for the years 2006-2010”. At the meeting of the Security Council chaired by the head of the state, which was held on the 15th of January 2008, “a final political decision” was passed which, despite certain legal controversies, will lead to construction of a new nuclear power plant.
A direct motive behind the taking of steps towards implementation of the national “energy security concept” was the gas and oil conflict between Belarus and Russia at the turn of 2006 and 2007. The new document was drawn up to support diversification of energy resources, exploitation of local fuels and an increase in the state’s energy efficiency. Measures to this end include nuclear power station, which, unfortunately, still does not eliminate the state’s dependence on energy supplied by Russia. Quite the opposite - indebtedness due to nuclear power station and the necessary purchase of technology may aggravate this dependence.
The very concept of “energy security” has developed in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States since 2005, when these states began experiencing difficulties with the supply and prices of hydrocarbons. The Russia-chaired G8 meeting held in 2006 in St. Petersburg adopted an action plan for “global energy security”, while the following year saw G.W. Bush announce in the US the idea of “energy independence”, having in mind primarily independence from imported materials. In the meantime, further development of the idea of hydrocarbon independence has led to global popularisation of the idea of “sustainable power engineering", proclaiming such principles as renewability, easy access to and ecological safety of energy sources, and efficiency in exploitation of the sources. These ideas, however, do not mention nuclear energy. The reasons for this include problems with disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste, decommissioning old power plants, and environmental pollution. This is why several European states, including Germany and Italy, refused to acknowledge nuclear energy as a mean to extend energy sustainability.
As a result of the global economic crisis, prices of hydrocarbons dropped significantly, particularly in the case of oil (in 2008). For this reason, Belarus has already taken steps to protect itself against dramatic fluctuations of supply that may occur in future. These measures involve, for instance, establishment of natural gas storage and transition of combined heat and power plants and industrial enterprises into other technological solutions, with a view to enhancing their efficiency. Thanks to these steps, the volume of natural gas imports stabilised (from 2005 to 2007 the volume nearly doubled from 10 to 20 billion m3 per annum, in contrast to the period from 2007 until now, in which the level of global import rose only by 1 billion m3 – according to reports by Gazprom in 2009, 2008).
Hence, Belarus and other states whose economies are dependent on hydrocarbons are trying to make their energy systems more immune to oil and gas crises. Unfortunately, the new types of dependence – on uranium and technologies – does not help solve the problem of energy security. Belarus has made the mistake of incorporating the idea of construction of nuclear power station into its national concept of energy security, as it is not feasible for economic, social and ecological reasons.
Among various motives behind the idea of construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus, experts underline a hope for financial aid from the state budget in the form of credits and grants, a change in the status of the state and groundless hopes that energy generated by the future nuclear power plant will be sold at a profit to EU states.
The complete text can be downloaded here in English and in Russian.