Economic and safety pressures on nuclear power: a comparison of Russia and Ukraine since the break-up of the Soviet Union

Abstract

Since the Chernobyl accident and the break up of the Soviet Union, nuclear power in Russia and Ukraine has come under intense scrutiny. The West has pursued a policy that the plants should undergo safety upgrades or be closed. However, the resources needed to achieve this have not been available. This paper examines how these pressures have affected nuclear power plants in Ukraine and Russia since 1991. Economic recession and the fall in electricity demand have led to lack of resources for fuel purchase, maintenance and upgrading. The only `unsafe’ plant that has been closed is one at Chernobyl in Ukraine. Russia is life-extending its `unsafe’ plants for a further ten years service. In Russia, other plants are dispatched ahead of nuclear plants and in summer, nuclear plants are operated at reduced power. Ukraine's position as a fossil fuel importer means that there is a greater incentive to run the nuclear plants intensively. This pressure was particularly strong in 1992 and 1997. Performance in the years following was much poorer. Ukraine faced an additional challenge in building up an independent regulatory capability from scratch after the break-up of the Soviet Union. While the new body is regarded as technically competent, it may lack the political power to impose its will.