Peaceful atom for blue-eyed
Perhaps the “naive sovereignty” of the Republic of Belarus does not manifest itself so vividly as in the energy issue, and specifically in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ostrovets. This NPP is being built by Rosatom (Atomstroyexport JSC), and it is clear that it is for a Russian loan. In Russia, this topic is little discussed, unlike in Belarus. But in Belarus, it is discussed constantly and very nervously: the people are against. People against the "peaceful atom". In addition, Lithuanian neighbors viciously hiss.
That is, many Belarusians do not like the fact that the nuclear power plant, and what is expensive, and what is built on Russian credit, and the fact that dependence on Russian fuel rods is formed, and the fact that Poland does not want to buy electricity from it , and the fact that supposedly an excess of unnecessary energy is formed. In short, everything is bad, everything is sad.
We sort through the points. First of all, any industrial society needs a large amount of electrical energy, this trend arose at the end of the 19-th century and then everything went on increasing. With each decade, the volume of energy produced / consumed only increased. With the smelting of iron / steel - here is somewhat different, but the production of e / e is an indicator of unmistakable. The more developed / safely our society is, the more electricity it consumes. It is needed in everyday life, in production, and transport.
It’s just that we lived for a very long time within the framework of the industrial superpower of the USSR and somehow got used to the fact that our electricity was just to hell. Just plug the plug into the socket ... We perceived electricity as something very cheap and for granted (who cut the wires for non-payment under Brezhnev?). What can I say for a long time? In fact, not everything is so simple. And even under socialism, the same Poland had certain energy problems. What is the trouble? Power generating facilities are very, very expensive, and you have to spend money here and now, and the return will go for decades. But thenwhen this particular politician will no longer be at the helm.
And the money must be spent on power generation and power lines. This is all very long and very expensive. Just an inhabitant in the USSR somehow did not think about it. Therefore, in the industrialized countries of the West there is a lot of electricity, but it is quite expensive. And what do you want? Common goods. Both for industrial enterprises and for households, paying electricity bills is a big headache.
For the countries of the third world, electricity supply in itself is a huge problem. The reason is the same - high capital intensity. But the post-Soviet citizens are not accustomed to think about it: in their view, electricity, firstly, should be, secondly, should be cheap. The trouble is that the USSR is almost gone for a quarter of a century. And yes, the very power plants that were laid down during the Soviet era, regularly give out megawatts to the network. But they do not become “newer”.
Sooner or later, it is necessary to invest in repairs, sooner or later, the old capacities must be decommissioned and new ones put into operation. So, as we remember from the school course of economic geography, the main sources of electricity are: thermal power plants, hydro power plants, and nuclear power plants. Let's start with hydroelectric power plants: they cannot be built everywhere, some of the land is flooded, the dam of a giant hydroelectric station is a very expensive thing. And there is no place to build large hydropower plants in Belarus. And small hydropower plants produce much less, much more expensive electricity. The scale effect has not been canceled.
Regarding thermal power plants: almost all the electricity in Belarus is generated for them! Great, but what is fuel? Here, in 80-e, the USSR actively built NPPs everywhere, but in connection with the well-known events, the NDP flew past the cash register, so the Poles are still actively burning coal. Such is the "ecology". (Yes, and the Poles have plans to create a nuclear power plant! And the Germans are totally against it!) By the way, Ukraine in 1991 was much more advanced energy than Poland - there they relied precisely on nuclear power, and not on coal. About 40% generation. And until now, it is the Soviet nuclear power plants that save Ukraine from complete collapse. It is they, relatives, and not the idea of "Banderaism-svidomizma."
How many people like to admire the staunchness of conscious Ukrainians, whom Russia “crushes”, but they “hold on”. Ukraine is "holding on" thanks to Soviet investments in energy and infrastructure. Soviet, Carl. All that the Ukrainians were capable of was nuclear experiments with Westinghouse fuel and explosions of power lines. Thermal power plants need large volumes of coal (as we all know from News), coal must be transported literally in trains. Then burn, scattering soot around the TPP. Due to the barbaric operation, both thermal power plants and nuclear power plants in Ukraine are gradually failing. And nobody, as we all understand, will build new ones for them. HPP also needs to be repaired, if that.
But the Ukrainian government does not even think about the problem of power generation in the next decade. They expect that by the time Ukraine is plunged into darkness, they will no longer be there (Yatsenyuk path). That is, the problem of power generation is very, very specific, many simply do not understand this. Belarusian electricity generation goes, firstly, to TPPs, secondly, while mostly natural gas is burned. Great, comfortable and environmentally friendly. The only problem is that it is very, very expensive. That is, in rich Germany, it is still possible to close your eyes (although there this “Fairy tale” energy balance is not observed). But in poor Belarus ... somehow too "curly."
The second source of generation - fuel oil is also not cheap and also from Russia. As a matter of fact, the Belarusians needed the nuclear power plant “just yesterday”. In fact - the cheapest energy. But they are against. Against a nuclear power plant. As an alternative, the European experience of “green energy” is necessarily mentioned. Windmills and solar panels. The trouble is that “green energy” is not just “expensive”, it is insanely expensive. Even for a rich / environmentally friendly Germany.
It is precisely the energy question that highlights the complete unpreparedness of the Belarusian society for genuine independence. The USSR, which once created the energy system of the future RB, no, and a very long time ago. In full growth, there is a problem (no, not racing with BCHB flags and not moving to the MOV) of self-sustaining the country's energy balance. But who is interested in Minsk? The very “debt for gas”, which the Belarusian side cannot cover in any way, arose in many respects precisely during the generation of electricity due to the burning of this very gas. Expensive, is not it?
That is, today gas generation of electric power to the Belarusian society is absolutely beyond our means. Sailed, Panov. The decision of "independent Belarusians" - reduce the price of gas! Now imagine how much electricity and at what prices will be generated in the Republic of Belarus under the condition “gas at market prices”, in fact this would mean an immediate collapse of the Belarusian power industry - you cannot save the integral power system with such a sharp drop in electricity production.
Electric power engineering is not only “one of the branches of the national economy,” but, this is, the basis of the economy. And so in Belarus today it is subsidized at the expense of Russia. Because cheap gas. When considering the prospects for this, Belarusian specialists consider mainly technical aspects (as in Soviet times). The billions needed to implement these technical solutions should apparently appear by themselves. People can’t understand the “price of independence”: Lithuania could shut down the nuclear power plant in Ignalina (under EU pressure), but none they will not build a new nuclear power plant. Live as you wish. And "as you like" means import e / e Before the closure of the NPP, Lithuania was an exporter ... The example of Bulgaria is no less interesting - there already in the post-Soviet time three Russian projects were hacked to death: the NPP, the gas pipeline and the oil pipeline. And that's it - hello to my family ... Bulgarians are now really angry. In Russian. The EEC is - there is no energy ...
Due to the sharp deterioration in Moscow-Minsk relations, the introduction of market prices for gas (as in Ukraine) is only a matter of time. Forgive me, what kind of fool would give billions to a “not too friendly regime” every year? But the Ukrainian power industry was based on the Ukrainian nuclear power plants and the Donbass coal (TPP). But the production (metallurgy + chemistry) actively eats up Russian gas. Belarusians to generate electricity stupidly burn Russian gas ... which they can not afford (debts are growing!). Such is the energy in the “independent” Belarus.
But at the same time, they are categorically against an “unsafe” nuclear power plant. It's funny, Moscow (!) Has been concerned about the energy security of Belarus for a very long time - hence the project of the nuclear power plant in Ostrovets. In theory, it should have been started at 10 before, but nuclear phobias ... Belarus does not have large coal, let alone gas / oil deposits, there is no excess of hydro resources either (not Norway!). But this is not Bangladesh yet (electricity is actively consumed by enterprises and the population). So, excuse me, closing the energy balance?
Belarusians are not interested in such things (as Ukrainians were not previously interested). It seems that for those that are for others, independence is in an embroidered shirt to run / jump, wave a national flag ... on a move to exercise. An “independent state” with an independent energy sector must be built by someone else. Constantly you meet comments in the Belarusian press that while “unsafe NPP” is being built in Ostrovets, “the whole world is going a different way”. That is, it is as if hinted that the solution is, is it ...
The role of this “decision” is to serve as a virtual alternative to the “bad nuclear power plant”. NPP in Ostrovets is bad because: a) unsafe, b) expensive, c) Russian. As for “safety”, any man-made object is usually unsafe: both the mine, and the chemical plant, and the hydroelectric dam ... It’s a shame of course, but this is largely a payment for civilization ... And what other options? Back to the jungle (so today the jungle is not enough for everyone)? Security needs to be ensured, this is a problem ... but by refusing you can’t decide anything. So Japan drowned out the power units of the nuclear power plant ... and faced a wild electricity shortage. And the economy is falling, and the trade balance went into a minus.
Germany after Fukushima step by step suppresses power units of nuclear power plants ... and problems grow like a snowball. A densely populated, urbanized, industrial country such as Germany / Japan is doomed to use the energy of the atom in the modern world to us (the second option is to “lie down” under Russia). As for the transition of the Federal Republic of Germany to the “alternative” energy sector, there is a mass of information and discussions on this issue in the network. In short, even in an industrial, rich and “environmentally friendly” Germany, it quickly became clear that “green energy”: a) is very expensive, b) is very unreliable, c) not a damn thing is “ecological”.
Why? And ask, how there is a "green" kilowatt hour ... "Green" products produced on "environmentally friendly" energy will be golden (already without any quotes). And it is not to sell it to anyone. No, if we close down almost all the plants in Germany and “halve” the population ... The next ambush is the periodicity of the “green generation,” that is, the sun, that is, no; the wind will blow, it will subside ... And how, I'm sorry, are you going to build around this the energetics of a whole industrial state? The solution is to keep the TPP in the “heated” state constantly. Just in case. And then the "green" energy becomes just the weight of diamonds ... And that if you do not take into account large add. Costs for power transmission lines and transformers: “relieving” voltage from one NPP is one thing, collecting it in “fields, forests and along lanes” is quite another.
As for the “environmental friendliness” of “green” energy: the mass production of solar batteries and batteries is not a damn ecological process, and the environmental pollution is enormous. "Wonderful" windmills all frankly steamed in densely populated Germany. Imagine that a giant fan is spinning around the clock in meters from 100 from your house ... haven't you tried to live in a factory? And you thought he was silent? Everything, you know, has its price, and not only in money. And its payback time is 15-20 years ... How will its gears gnash through 15 years? Cap repair, speak?
So, under the condition of normal operation of energy NPP much cheaper "green", and the problems for others are much less. Yes, I agree, every single windmill is much cheaper than a nuclear power plant unit, but we must look at the problem as a whole, on a national scale. Citizens are bred like rabbits: someone else, somewhere, at someone’s expense, will build a “green generation” - simply, quickly, cheaply and safely ... and you will only use it. In fact, a purely "green" electric power industry is permanent blackouts and monstrous energy bills. That is, the e / e of bread turns into black caviar ...
The most annoying thing is that, once in this “new wonderful world”, it is no longer possible to break through to the world, “when the father paid for the 10-ku light ...”. Think about who needs to “independently” produce electricity, if it is produced in industrial scaleworth a penny? It's like cooking soap.
About the fact that the nuclear power plant is Russian. And what were the options? Is Belarus ready to pay for the construction of a French / American nuclear power plant out of its pocket? The nuclear power plant is being built on credit by Rosatom. Russian loan. Something is wrong? Or Russia should have credited the western manufacturer of nuclear power plants? Why do we need it? This, by the way, is a very characteristic moment - Belarusians categorically do not like it when Russia derives at least some profit from cooperation with them. So it should not be - all the money and "nishtyaki" should go strictly in the direction of Minsk.
Any “turn” in this question causes a categorical rejection. So, the fact that Rosatom is earning something there on the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ostrovets does not suit Belarusians in any way. That is, Western companies in this global for Belarus project do not want to get involved with Lukashenka (and they do it right!), Belarusians cannot build a nuclear power plant in any way ... Russia remains. But it does not arouse absolutely warm feelings towards the “main ally”. Here, not even the air base and not recognition of the Crimea, here is an infrastructure project of enormous importance for Belarus. It is for Belarus, because for the Russian Federation the commercial side of this project, given the internal instability and insolvency of the customer, is a big question, but this construction does not cause any positive for the Belarusians.
The project is not military, not defensive, Belarus, moreover, has not even begun to pay for its implementation (and not the fact that it can), but there is a lot of negativity there. There were "antiatomic" demonstrations. Since the project is essentially Russian, these demonstrations are anti-Russian ... By the way, it is this NPP in Ostrovets that proves the complete absurdity of all attempts at Russian-Belarusian economic cooperation: for the “right” to create the first NPP for the Belarusians, 10 demanded a billion dollars supposedly under construction, but with free money, which is typical ... (That is, first 6, then 9, then 10 ...)
Otherwise, the project will not be implemented. Hardly so ... I wonder who needs the energy security of Belarus? Putin or Lukashenko? Why pay 10 "Lard greens" for the right to build nuclear power plants for Belarusians? Maybe stop trying to solve others Problems? Build a nuclear power plant next with the Belarusian border (you do not have to pay 10 “Lard” for this!) and in the future sell them energy. What's wrong? It is absolutely not clear that Russia receives as a result of the project in Belarus ... and given the tense current situation, it’s not a fact that it will be completed.
We at our own expense built a nuclear power plant in Ignalina - “grateful” Lithuanians closed it to hell and accused Russia of occupation, now we are building a nearby NPP in Ostrovets, and again “on our own”, which is typical (say that “dancing on a rake” - is it the national fun of Ukrainians?) ... And let us remember the mega-project on the creation of nuclear energy in Ukraine ... someone told us thanks? Yes, nuclear power plants are absolutely critical for the future of Belarus, but if the Belarusians themselves do not want to understand this, then what will you do here? Few countries on the planet live in the light of torches / kerosene? Ukraine (like many other post-Soviet countries) has lost its industry, is losing energy and is moving to the Third World, but we will not be able to help them.
Unfortunately, the level of "elites" that Ukraine, that Belarus did not allow them to stay in the "first world" (Kazakhstan holds, which is typical!) And now there is a natural process of lumpenization and "bantustanization", but we cannot help them - they are “independent” ", And for their leadership" it is better to be first in Bangladesh than the second in Switzerland "...
Related information: Energy turn to nowhere: Europeans are fooled by the prices of renewable energy.
Information