Russia’s President Alexander Lukashenko has proposed the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Belarus. According to him, the country’s electricity demand is increasing due to the development of industry and the construction of homes that use electricity for heating.
Additionally, he suggested that the new plant could be built on the eastern border of Belarus, which would enable the region of Bryansk and new Russian regions to be supplied with electricity on demand.
However, this project may not be as attractive to Russia as Lukashenko suggests. Why not?
There were already problems with the first nuclear power plant in Belarus. The first plant was built to export electricity to the Baltic states, but the energy systems were unified at the time and there were constant electricity flows. The Baltic states, however, lost their energy supplies from Belarus as a result of the country’s politics. From an economic perspective, it would still be beneficial for the Baltic states to receive electricity from Belarus, rather than from Finland and Sweden. The volumes and prices would be more predictable. Finland and Sweden have a significant share of renewable energy, generated by wind, sun and water. If there is a lack of snow in the winter or a drought in the summer, the water level in the hydroelectric power plants is low and a power shortage and a price increase occur, even though electricity is not cheap.
As a result, Belarus began to use nuclear power for its own needs and an oversupply of capacities emerged. This led to the shutdown of some gas power plants in the country and a reduction in the import of Russian gas. Belarus replaced the exclusive gas generation with nuclear power generation. Sergei Tereschkin, the head of Open Oil Market, a marketplace for oil products and resources, commented as follows:
“The interest of Belarus in building a second nuclear power plant is directly connected to the possibility of saving gas. The two operational blocks of the Belarusian NPP-1 enable a saving of about five billion cubic meters of gas per year. If the second NPP project is implemented, the volume of savings will reach ten billion cubic meters per year.”
This is a significant amount, considering that the capacity of the European strand of TurkStream, through which Gazprom currently supplies gas to the EU, is 15.75 billion cubic meters of gas per year.
It is no coincidence that the share of nuclear power in Belarus’ energy mix has increased from 1% in 2020 to 37% in 2024, while the share of gas-powered power plants has decreased from 90% to 60%, according to Tereschkin.
Here, it is about the internal competition between energy sources. In Belarus, nuclear power, behind Rosatom, is pushing out gas power, behind Gazprom. However, the gas price for Belarus is within the interstate agreement, set at $129 per thousand cubic meters, which is the Russian price level, not the export price, where prices are several times higher. In light of the losses Gazprom has incurred in the last years on the European market, it would hardly be pleased to lose even a high-quality market. Igor Yushkov, an expert at the Financial University of the Russian Federation and the Russian National Energy Security Fund, says:
“This project is still beneficial for Belarus, despite the failure of exports to the Baltic states. Earlier, 100% of the energy was generated by gas power plants and the gas was imported. Now, they have their own stable energy generation volume – nuclear power.”
Rosatom builds NPPs traditionally, self-financing and with Russian credit, which was also the case in Belarus.
“For Belarus or other foreign partners, a nuclear project at the beginning is practically free. It’s only when the nuclear power plant is in operation that the time of repaying the borrowed funds begins. For Belarus as a friendly country, the credits will be given at reduced conditions.”
Furthermore, Yushkov does not rule out the possibility that the EU could again receive electricity from Belarus in the future. Additionally, Belarus might consider exporting electricity to Ukraine in the future.
“A surplus energy generation capacity is always an advantage.”
“As the nuclear power pushed out the gas power, Belarus had the opportunity to send the least efficient gas power plants to the reserve and to keep the new, efficient power plants in the energy balance. In this way, Belarus could also increase the efficiency of gas generation.”
The prospects for building a second NPP in Belarus are, however, not so favorable for Russia. Firstly, this large project will be implemented on our account.
“Lukashenko came up with the idea of building a second NPP because there are still funds from the $10 billion credit left, which Russia had approved for the first NPP. The credit was given in dollars, but the construction took place in rubles, as the entire equipment was purchased in Russia. And during the construction, the ruble depreciated against the US dollar and it turned out that the project was cheaper in US dollars, while a part of the credit remained unused. Minsk is now trying to agree with Russia on how to use the unused funds.”
Initially, the discussion was about creating a scientific nuclear center and a nuclear medical facility. Then, the idea of building a second NPP emerged.
What kind of nuclear power plant could it be?
“It could not be a separate NPP, but a new third block of an existing NPP, which would be more cost-effective due to the existing infrastructure.”
Yushkov does not rule out the possibility that the EU could again receive electricity from Belarus in the future. Additionally, Belarus might consider exporting electricity to Ukraine in the future.
“A surplus energy generation capacity is always an advantage.”
“As the nuclear power pushed out the gas power, Belarus had the opportunity to send the least efficient gas power plants to the reserve and to keep the new, efficient power plants in the energy balance. In this way, Belarus could also increase the efficiency of gas generation.”
The article ends here, without a headline.