Completion of the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant: let's break down the key facts.

The Cabinet of Ministers has initiated the completion of two energy units at the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant. This requires a decision from the Verkhovna Rada. Despite the strategic importance of the project for energy security, it faces political discussions and resistance from certain parliamentary factions. Additionally, a number of myths regarding the need for nuclear generation, the European stance, construction costs, and its feasibility during wartime are circulating in the information space. More details on these issues can be found in our material.

On January 16, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Energy and Housing and Communal Services recommended that the parliament grant "Energoatom" permission to acquire two VVER-1000 reactors from Bulgaria, which are necessary for the completion of the KhNPP. This decision allows for the conclusion of negotiations and the signing of the relevant agreement. A separate law for the implementation of the project will be adopted based on an updated technical and economic justification, adapted to current conditions.

The government approved the completion of the Khmelnytsky NPP back in April 2024, but due to delays in the Verkhovna Rada, the process has yet to make progress. Throughout this time, the Bulgarian side has demonstrated a constructive approach by extending the deadline for the sale of equipment.

Negotiations between Ukraine and Bulgaria have been ongoing for more than two and a half years. In September 2024, Bulgaria extended the decision-making deadline to March 2025. Further delays depend on several factors, including the domestic political situation in Bulgaria and the geopolitical context.

The approach to the issue in the parliaments of both countries is telling. In Bulgaria, the discussion is focused on economic aspects and the cost of the deal (the final price has been agreed at 600 million euros). Meanwhile, in Ukraine, discussions often go beyond rational arguments and devolve into the spread of myths: regarding the origins of the reactors, European support, potential corruption risks, and the necessity of developing nuclear generation.

Myth 1. The energy units will operate on Russian fuel

Truth: exclusively fuel from the American company Westinghouse or fuel produced in Ukraine using Westinghouse technology.

This is false and even a hoax that is regularly debunked at the official level, yet it remains "popular." In fact, this topic has been definitively closed: back in 2023, "Energoatom" completed all necessary work to fully transition to Westinghouse fuel in all Ukrainian nuclear power units with VVER-1000 and VVER-440 reactors.

Similar reactors in Bulgaria are serviced by Westinghouse under a 10-year fuel supply contract from 2022. In April 2024, Westinghouse Electric successfully reloaded VVER-1000 fuel assemblies at the Bulgarian NPP "Kozloduy", which was supposed to be paired with the "Belene" NPP.

Units No. 3 and No. 4 of the Khmelnytsky NPP will operate exclusively on fuel from the American company Westinghouse or on fuel produced in Ukraine using Westinghouse technology, as explicitly stated in government bill No. 11146. This provision will also be maintained in the updated bill. Otherwise, it simply will not receive votes.

Myth 2. These are "Russian units," and they are dangerous

Truth: all operational nuclear power units in Ukraine are built using Soviet VVER-1000 technology. They are as "Russian" as they are Ukrainian.

Units No. 3 and No. 4 of the KhNPP were designed during the Soviet era, but that does not mean they are "Russian." Moreover, the main components of these units were manufactured by the Ukrainian company "Energomashspetsstal." In essence, they are as Russian as they are Ukrainian. Most nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe and all plants in Ukraine operate on VVER-1000 reactors. These models are so reliable that they even withstood the "technological torment" of Russian occupiers at the ZNPP. The fact that their operation is well understood by Ukrainian nuclear engineers simplifies personnel training for their maintenance.

Furthermore, during the construction process, the energy units will receive modern safety systems and will comply with international standards set by the IAEA, which supports the development of the KhNPP, as explicitly stated by the head of the organization, Rafael Grossi, who is ready to provide a special technical mission for project implementation.

Myth 3. Ukraine does not need that much electricity

Truth: Ukraine is experiencing an electricity deficit, which will only grow as the economy recovers.

The fact is that Ukraine is already facing an electricity deficit. In 2024, electricity imports increased by 5.5 times compared to 2023, reaching 4.437 billion kWh, while exports decreased by 5% to 348.5 million kWh. This indicates that the country is not producing enough electricity to meet its own consumption and risks remaining dependent on expensive imports indefinitely. Following the end of the war and the economic recovery, which will lead to a sharp increase in energy consumption, the deficit will continue to rise. Conversely, with a surplus of electricity, we could profit from exports.

Prior to the first massive attack on the energy sector on October 10, 2022, when the term "blackout" became common, electricity exports to Europe brought significant revenues to Ukraine. In just July-August 2022, they amounted to nearly 3 billion UAH, with a 1 billion UAH increase in the last ten days of August 2022 due to rising prices in Europe.

Our neighbors are particularly interested in increasing capacity at the KhNPP. In early September 2022, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stated after talks with President Volodymyr Zelensky about the possibility of electricity supplies from the KhNPP that could be transferred via the line connecting the Khmelnytsky NPP and Poland.

Myth 4. Completing the units is too expensive and unjustified

Truth: since the nuclear units are 80% and 25% ready, respectively, the cost of their completion will be significantly lower than building a nuclear power plant from scratch.

Building a nuclear power plant indeed requires substantial capital investments, but this is a one-time long-term investment that will yield a vast amount of the cheapest electricity. Completing the third and fourth units will make the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. The third unit alone will provide an additional 1100 MW, which is approximately the consumption volume of the city of Kyiv.

The cost of the two reactors that we can purchase from Bulgaria is $600 million. This is less than what Ukraine paid for electricity imports in 2023 - $669.4 million. In fact, we spend more on one year of imports than the cost of our own generation, which will operate for decades. Ukraine has already invested $2 billion in the construction of these units. Only 3-4 years are needed to complete the construction.

In total, the two nuclear units will cost Ukraine $3 billion, while Poland is building a nuclear power plant from scratch with a budget of $14.5 billion.

Myth 5. Nuclear energy in Ukraine has no future

Truth: if we want low electricity tariffs, we need as much nuclear energy as possible, which has the lowest cost of production.

This assertion contradicts reality. Ukraine is among the leaders in Europe in terms of nuclear generation, which provides more than 50% of the electricity. This is similar to the figures in Belgium and Slovakia, but less than in France, which, with its 56 reactors, generates up to 70% of its own electricity and is the largest exporter of electricity in Europe. The Czech Republic produces about 30% of its electricity from VVER-type reactors.

Considering the global trend towards reducing fossil fuel consumption to prevent climate change, only carbon-neutral electricity will have prospects in the future. This includes nuclear and renewable energy (RES).

However, it is no secret that the rise of wind and solar power plants in Ukraine began with the introduction of high "green" tariffs, which will remain in effect until 2030. After the preferential period ends, wind power plants will operate under general conditions and will have to lower prices to remain competitive compared to cheaper nuclear energy. Therefore, it is the supporters of RES who actively discredit the "nuclear workers."

Myth 6. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build, and we need electricity today

Truth: the demand for electricity will be even greater after the war, and completing the KhNPP will take 3-4 years, which is an extremely short period for a nuclear power plant. This is because the units are already 80%-25% ready.