Does Ukraine need a Russian project? 8 questions about the completion of Khmelnitsky NPP

Economist Volodymyr Omelchenko - for the development of Ukrainian nuclear power (along with other areas). But he is categorically against the completion of the Khmelnytsky NPP according to the Russian project, morally outdated and generally strange, taking into account the ongoing war. "It was already" (L. Kuchma). "It has never been such - and here again" (V. Chernomyrdin) it can not be said that the project of construction of the third and fourth blocks of Khmelnitsky NPP - is so new.

It originated in the time of L. Brezhnev in 1971 within the plans of the USSR on the construction of a station of four atomic blocks of 1 GW each.

The implementation of the KhNPP project 3,4 in Netishin began in 1986-1987, and in 1990 ceased because of a moratorium caused by the Chernobyl accident in 1986: the first block of KhNPP was put into operation in 1987, the second -In 2004, it was not 25 years old, as the project decided to restore during the next unrestrained tide of Russian-Ukrainian "friendship".

It happened almost immediately after the election of the president of the one who "empty" at the meeting of the premieres of Ukraine and Russia on April 30, 2010. One of the main lobbyists of the project was then the expression of NAEK "Energoatom", and now a member of the Federation and Defense Committee of the Federation Council Russia or just a long -standing super agent of Russian special services Andrei Derkach.

At the same time, the formal driver of the project was the current head of the Russian peace in Ukraine and the leader of the PPZZ Yu. A. Boyko (then he was the Minister of Energy) after the victory of the Revolution of Dignity of the Project ceased - and now the issue of his revival is on the agenda, but already on the basis of Russian Reactors built in the era of "prehistoric materialism" for the Bulgarian NPP Belen.

Making a decision, implementing or not implementing the CHPP-3,4 project, needs the answer to the following questions: the supporters of the Russian project, however, have a "powerful" argument-"so it is much cheaper than others. " Yes, Moskvich 412 is also much cheaper than a new "Toyota" and can, in principle, go, but are there many who want to buy it? It is known that not only Bulgaria, but also Iran and India, where reactors from NPPs Belen, were abandoned by Russian nuclear unnecessary.

From another project of the NPP for the Russian project Vver-1200 (Hanchikivi-1), despite the great losses, immediately after the start of the large-scale aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine also refused Finland-in time they realized that safety and reliability are more expensive than money. Personally, I am a supporter of the atomic scenario of Ukrainian energy development by 2050. Plus RES and plus balancing gas power plants and Energy Storage.

Instead, Ukraine is entitled to choose the best reactor, not the cheapest Russian junk. I am not a fan of Russian technologies, and in particular nuclear. It is necessary to choose a project in an open competition with the participation of leading world companies, where there is no place for Russian scrap. I am convinced that the selection should take place among Westinghouse, Areva (France), Kepco (South Korea), Aecl (Canada), Toshiba (Japan) and others.

I believe that promising for Ukraine is also the construction of small modular SMR reactors. But this is already a topic of another post. He has always been a supporter of elimination of energy dependence on the Russian Federation. He rigidly opposed Kharkiv agreements and nuclear projects with the participation of Russian companies during Yanukovych. This material provides my own evaluation judgments that may coincide and not coincide with the official position of state bodies.