On October 6, a nationwide referendum was held in Kazakhstan to determine the approval of constructing a nuclear power plant. According to the Central Election Commission, 71.12% of voters supported the initiative.
Following the announcement of the voting date on September 2, the government launched an active information campaign, utilizing the media to persuade citizens of the critical need for a nuclear power plant. Those opposing the government’s stance were labeled as being against progress, and civic activists who opposed the construction were detained by the police. By the time of the referendum, the bureaucratic apparatus had mobilized public sector employees and students to vote as directed. Independent observers who reported violations, such as ballot stuffing, faced pressure, with some being removed from polling stations. They question both the turnout figures and the final result.
The constructive dialogue that should have preceded such events failed to happen. Meanwhile, the issue of constructing a nuclear power plant, perhaps more than any other, required thorough and balanced consideration, particularly from the authorities, who portray the project as unequivocally beneficial. In reality, alongside the undeniable advantages, there are also certain risks that must be considered.
Factcheck.kz examined the issue and consulted with experts on both sides of the debate—those in favor of and those against the construction—in order to gain a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan. We present our findings in this article.
Brief summary:
The potential benefits of building a nuclear power plant include addressing electricity shortages, reducing greenhouse gas emissions — aligning with Kazakhstan’s long-term decarbonization goals — and generating employment opportunities.
On the downside, there are concerns about radioactive emissions, the production of radioactive waste, and the unresolved challenges of its disposal or storage, all of which could impact public health.
Key risks include financial uncertainties, such as corruption and unclear construction costs, as well as geopolitical risks tied to the choice of the country whose company will handle the facility’s construction.
Pros of building a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan
Access to energy is a crucial element for socio-economic development. One of the objectives of sustainable development is to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy for all.
At the same time, the energy sector has consistently faced various threats and crises. To tackle current and future challenges in the industry, the World Energy Council (WEC) was established. Since 2010, the WEC has released an annual ranking of countries based on the World Energy Trilemma Index.
The World Energy Trilemma Index offers an impartial and objective evaluation of a country’s energy policy and its effectiveness. It utilizes verified global and national data to assess governance based on three critical parameters: energy security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability.
In 2021, the world is once again facing a significant energy crisis characterized by rising prices, fuel shortages, and energy deficits. These issues negatively impact the primary aspect of the Trilemma—energy security.
The development of nuclear energy has the potential to address this problem while also contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy security
Kazakhstan has not escaped global challenges. The country’s energy system relies 70% on coal, with an average equipment depreciation rate of 66% at thermal power plants. Meanwhile, electricity consumption is on the rise: in 2023, demand increased by 1.9% compared to the previous year. Forecasts indicate that the electricity deficit will reach 1.025 GW from October 2024 to March 2025, potentially escalating to 6.2 GW by 2030. This energy shortfall also impacts production within the country.
“During our regional visits, we met with entrepreneurs, and on several occasions, they mentioned having investors and the necessary funds for expansion but lacking access to energy. In other words, our energy supply is currently constrained. We are losing essential energy resources, and this limits any prospects for industrial development”, says Timur Zhantikin, General Director of Kazakhstan Nuclear Power Plants LLP.
In this context, Kazakhstan (1, 2), like many other countries, is considering a “nuclear revival.” Proponents of nuclear energy argue that its development could help nations improve all three aspects of the Trilemma: energy security, affordability, and environmental sustainability.
Timur Zhantikin notes that in deciding whether to build a nuclear power plant, Kazakhstanis are addressing a broader question — whether to pursue the development of nuclear energy and related programs or to explore alternative energy sources.
Currently, approximately 440 reactors are operational across 33 countries, with an additional 60 under construction. Notably, 14 of the top 20 countries with the highest energy security index have functioning nuclear power plants.
Latvia and Estonia are planning to build nuclear power plants, while France already sources 70% of its energy from nuclear facilities. This year, the U.S. passed the ADVANCE bill, aimed at promoting the development of nuclear energy. Overall, nuclear power currently accounts for about 10% of global electricity generation.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA) emphasizes the particular vulnerability of countries in the wake of COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war, stressing that nuclear energy possesses specific qualities that can enhance both security and sovereignty.
Nuclear energy ensures a long-term energy supply and delivers substantial amounts of electricity, with reactors maintaining high average capacity factors. Additionally, nuclear plants can operate for 60 to 100 years. The 2019 WEC report also affirms that nuclear power is the primary stable energy source.
The uranium required for the operation of a nuclear power plant is easy and inexpensive to transport. For example, a 1000 MW nuclear plant would require only 27 tons of processed nuclear fuel, whereas a coal plant of the same capacity would need over 2.5 million tons of coal.
Kazakhstan holds a unique position as the world’s leading uranium exporter, commanding 43% of the global market. As a result, the Republic is particularly well-placed to benefit (1, 2) from harnessing its vast uranium reserves for energy production.
At the same time, Kazatomprom JSC, Kazakhstan’s national operator for the import and export of uranium and nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants, emphasizes that uranium is extracted using the environmentally friendly in-situ leaching (ISL) method. According to Manas Iskakov, Director of the Industrial Safety Department at NAC Kazatomprom JSC, this is a more environmentally friendly and safe method, as evidenced by the absence of significant environmental incidents related to uranium mining since the company’s inception. Additionally, ISL extraction does not negatively impact the earth’s surface.
Decarbonization
Another urgent global issue is the rise in weather anomalies resulting from climate change and elevated greenhouse gas emissions. In response, at the 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-28) in December 2023, an Agreement was adopted to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, among other initiatives.
According to estimates, since 1940, the average annual temperature in Kazakhstan has risen by 0.28°C every decade. A recent study conducted by a team of scientists from Germany and France confirms that, since 1950, the average annual temperature in Central Asia has increased by at least 1.24 degrees.
Under the Paris Agreement, Kazakhstan has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality, as its aging energy system contributes significantly to per capita greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, energy production accounts for 77.6% of the country’s total emissions.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants are lower than those from any other energy supply technologies, with the exception of renewable energy sources (RES), where the figures are nearly comparable.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants are lower than from any other energy supply technologies, except for renewable energy sources (RES) – here the figures are almost equal.
Bekbergen Kerey, head of the central office of the Baitak Green Party, also affirms that nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources are relatively clean technologies. Neither produces carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, which are the primary drivers of global warming and climate change. This makes them crucial tools in achieving Kazakhstan’s decarbonization goals.
Notably, proponents of nuclear energy do not see nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources as competing technologies. According to experts, nuclear power plants should serve as a stable energy source, facilitating the integration of renewables into the system without the risk of disruption. Bekbergen Kerey highlighted the stability of nuclear plants as a key advantage: they operate with 90% efficiency around the clock, regardless of time or season, whereas the efficiency of renewable energy sources does not exceed 40%.
The expert also pointed out the growing challenge of disposing of decommissioned renewable energy equipment as the technology becomes more widespread. In contrast, Bekbergen Kerey noted that throughout the entire history of nuclear energy globally, the total volume of spent nuclear fuel has amounted to only 370,000 tons*, one-third of which has already been reprocessed.
*According to estimates from the IAEA and WNA, the global volume of spent nuclear fuel between 1954 and 2016 was approximately 390-400 thousand tons.
The disposal challenge is aggravated by the fact that wind power plants have a lifespan of only 20-25 years, and the durability of renewable energy sources can be significantly shortened by extreme weather conditions and various accidents.
To achieve substantial capacity from renewable energy sources, a large area for power stations is required. According to Timur Zhantikin, CEO of the Kaliningrad NPP, generating 4,000 MW of energy would require just 0.68 km² for a nuclear power plant, compared to 142.4 km² for solar panels and 571.4 km² for wind turbines.
Additionally, the shift to renewable energy increases the demand for “critical components” such as copper, aluminum, nickel, lithium, cobalt, platinum, silver, and rare earth metals. In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report stating that, while rising demand for these minerals may enhance living standards in countries with reserves, it could also lead to unsustainable resource management and labor exploitation.
Jobs
The construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants will generate a significant number of new jobs, boosting the region’s economy. At its peak, a large nuclear power plant can employ up to 10,000 people. Although this number is lower compared to solar and wind power plants, statistics show that nuclear power plant workers receive the highest wages in the energy sector.
Cons of building a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan
Radioactive emissions
While nuclear energy is often labeled as green and environmentally friendly (1, 2, 3), carbon neutrality does not eliminate the environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants.
The probability of an accident at a modern nuclear facility is very low — one in a million — but never completely zero. The primary risks of a properly functioning nuclear power plant are radioactive emissions and nuclear waste.
The first risk is widely recognized, and every country has established safety standards for the allowed volume of emissions a nuclear plant can release annually. While the radiation from a plant’s aerosol emissions may be minimal, when combined with other types of radiation exposure over time, it can contribute to potential health issues.
Radioactive elements released with aerosols from nuclear power plants can spread over large areas, settle with precipitation, and accumulate in the environment, particularly in soil and water bodies. Over the 60-100 year lifespan of a plant, this impact can become quite substantial.
For instance, in the populated areas surrounding the recently launched Rosatom NPP in Belarus, official reports indicate that after the first reactor became operational, radiation levels in the area increased by 40 to 80 percent.
Tritium is one of the isotopes emitted by nuclear power plants. Proponents of nuclear energy consider the discharge of tritium-contaminated water into the environment a standard practice, and capturing tritium oxide particles in aerosol emissions is considered impractical. However, scientific opinions vary (1, 2, 3, 4) regarding the impact of low doses of tritium oxide on human health.
However, organically bound tritium (OBT), which forms when tritium oxide is incorporated into plants and animal products, can infiltrate DNA and other biomolecules, persisting in the body for up to a year (1, 2, 3). By irradiating the body from within, OBT can lead to cell damage, particularly in sensitive tissues such as neurons or germ cells. Additionally, OBT may adversely affect fetal development.
British scientist Ian Fairley suggests that the increased incidence of cancer in children living in close proximity to nuclear power plants may be linked to radiation exposure experienced by women during pregnancy.
“Dirty” fuel chain
However, the primary danger during the operation of a nuclear power plant and after its shutdown is radioactive waste, according to Andrey Ozharovskiy, a nuclear physicist and expert with the public program “Safety of Radioactive Waste,” who spoke to Factcheck.kz:
The greatest risk associated with any nuclear power plant lies in the nuclear fuel chain, which is essential for their operation. The most significant hazards arise from uranium mining and its initial processing, which represent the early stages of the nuclear fuel chain. Uranium enrichment is particularly polluting, and the final stages of the nuclear fuel chain are equally problematic, involving processes related to the management of radioactive waste.
In other words, if Kazakhstan undertakes its own uranium enrichment, the country will need to manage not only the disposal of spent nuclear fuel but also a substantial volume (1, 2) of highly toxic waste generated from the enrichment process.
In addition to requiring permission from the IAEA to enrich uranium, Kazakhstan will face enormous investments for construction and technology procurement. There may also be additional costs for either building a deconversion plant or establishing deep burial sites. In any scenario, the tailings from enriched uranium will present environmental hazards.
Kazatomprom holds a stake in the Russian Uranium Enrichment Center in Irkutsk. As a co-owner, Kazakhstan can obtain enriched uranium from Russia at a discount; however, even with this discount, the service costs are likely to rise. Over the past year, the price of uranium enrichment on the global market has increased by 1.5 times. Furthermore, the export of Russian uranium is already subject to US sanctions, either de facto or de jure, and it remains uncertain how ongoing cooperation with Moscow in this area will impact other countries.
Regardless of which country Kazakhstan approaches for enriched uranium, it is unlikely that acquiring fuel for its own nuclear power plant will lead to savings or enhance “energy independence.”
Reprocessing and Storage
Another major challenge for nuclear power plants — one that will affect many future generations — is the disposal and storage of nuclear waste.
According to the gov.kz website’s “Popular Questions about NPPs,” nuclear waste can either be stored or reprocessed, depending on the type and technology used. Additionally, spent nuclear fuel can be repurposed as an energy source.
However, the technologies for processing and reusing spent fuel are not as common as they may appear. Only a few countries actively recycle nuclear fuel, and the closed fuel cycle remains a developing technology (1, 2, 3). For instance, Russia currently reprocesses only 15% of its total nuclear waste.
It is worth noting that fuel reprocessing still produces radioactive waste that requires specialized burial conditions, significantly raising costs and creating further challenges, explains Andrey Ozharovskiy.
The alternative option for handling spent fuel is storage, but this is more complex than it might appear.
Long-term, and especially permanent, disposal of nuclear waste requires the construction of specialized repositories with specific conditions, which naturally involve substantial costs. For instance, approximately $60 million was spent solely on waste containers to transport spent nuclear fuel from the Aktau reactor to the Kurchatov disposal site.
Spent fuel is often stored in so-called dry storage facilities at power plants (1, 2, 3) or designated sites. The challenge with this type of storage is that it is only designed for a relatively short period, especially when compared to the half-life of the radioactive material—typically between 30-40 to 100-120 years (1, 2, 3). After this time, the integrity of the storage containers may degrade, necessitating reprocessing or reburial of the waste, leading to additional costs and new risks.
The construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository remains a challenging goal to accomplish, with financial and security concerns serving as the main obstacles.
In the United States, discussions, research, and partial construction of the Yucca Mountain repository have been underway since 2002, yet the project remains far from completion. Estimates suggest that the final cost could reach $97 billion (1, 2).
In Switzerland, after 14 years of analysis and site exploration, a suitable location for a long-term repository has finally been identified, with an estimated construction cost of $20 billion.
The Finnish Onkalo repository is more the exception than the rule. Its successful completion can be attributed to transparent communication, low levels of corruption, and efficient collaboration between the government, corporations, and society—conditions that are uncommon even in other European nations.
Moreover, even if a nuclear waste repository is built, the risk of leaks persists. A case in point is the Hanford complex in the United States, where radioactive leaks were recorded multiple times—in 2013, 2021, and possibly again in 2024.
The danger of such incidents lies in the fact that, unlike large-scale accidents, leaks are easier to conceal from the public. For instance, in Germany’s Asse-2 salt mine, radioactive waste leaks were first detected in 1988, but the state-owned operator did not acknowledge the issue until 20 years later—and only after media pressure.
Similarly, it was only through a journalistic investigation by The Guardian that the public became aware of a radiation leak and the deteriorating condition of the Sellafield storage facility in the UK.
The lives of those living near such storage facilities are constantly at risk. For example, the cancer rate around Asse-2 is more than twice the national average.
Additionally, efforts to decontaminate areas affected by radiation are extremely costly.
In the mid-2010s, the U.S. government spent $2 billion annually to address the consequences of the leaks at Hanford, and in 2022, it launched a new nuclear waste containment facility costing $17 billion. Cleanup efforts at Hanford are projected to continue until 2060, requiring an estimated $100 billion in total investment.
The cleanup of the Asse-2 leak is expected to take at least 30 years and cost the German government around $7-15 billion.
However, the largest financial burden falls on the UK, where preliminary estimates suggest that decontaminating the Sellafield storage facility could cost the country $125 billion.
Thus, nuclear waste storage facilities from power plants remain a costly and relatively temporary solution at this point.
Risks of building a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan
Financial risks
The construction of a nuclear power plant involves financial uncertainty and associated risks. The estimated cost of the facility in Kazakhstan is between $10 billion and $15 billion. However, this figure is still speculative, as neither a specific project nor a contractor has been finalized.
Kazakhstan has received construction proposals from companies in four countries: EDF (France), CNNC (China), Rosatom (Russia), and KHNP (South Korea). President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has suggested that the nuclear power plant should be built by an international consortium; however, this remains a vision for now. According to First Deputy Prime Minister Roman Sklyar, the decision regarding the consortium and its members will be made in 2025.
The lowest bid came from a Chinese contractor, offering $5.6 billion for a facility with two reactors, which is projected to be completed by 2035, or five years per reactor. However, global experience indicates that such short construction timelines are uncommon. Technical issues, public protests, and corruption can delay the construction process, potentially resulting in the overall cost of the nuclear power plant increasing by two to three times.
The gov.kz website asserts that “the construction of nuclear power plants is controlled by organizations such as the IAEA and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), which ensures adherence to safety standards and reduces corruption risks.” However, in practice, these organizations do not control the financial reporting related to construction; their role is limited to monitoring the safety of plant operations.
According to Vadim Ni, director of the Social and Ecological Fund, while the IAEA and WANO can review complaints regarding corruption, it is unlikely that the documentation from such entities will be made publicly accessible. As a result, efforts to combat embezzlement in this context appear ineffective.
Furthermore, the decision to collaborate with one of the leading candidates (1, 2, 3) for the project — Rosatom — appears financially risky due to the impact of sanctions. For instance, the construction timeline for the Akkuyu NPP in Turkey had to be extended because Siemens was unable to provide Rosatom with essential components, prompting the contractor to rely on Chinese suppliers. This delay ultimately resulted in increased construction costs.
The costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the power plant influence electricity prices, but they can also be affected by the terms of the contract with the contractor. For example, during the construction of Akkuyu, Rosatom stipulated that until 2037, Turkey would purchase 70% of the energy generated by the first two reactors and 30% from the third and fourth reactors at a rate of 12.35 cents per kWh (approximately 64 tenge at the time of writing). It’s important to note that Akkuyu is financed by Rosatom under a build-operate-transfer scheme, meaning the Russian company will initially operate the nuclear power plant, and it will be transferred to Turkey after a designated period.
The cost of nuclear electricity is consistently rising, in contrast to renewable energy sources (RES) like solar or wind energy, which see their costs decline as technologies advance and are adopted more widely.
Source: Lazard Investment Company Report for June 2024
When factoring in the costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear power plant, recent data suggests that the cost of nuclear electricity could exceed that of renewable energy sources by as much as six times.
It is not surprising that the global share of nuclear energy has been declining since the beginning of the century. In 2000, nuclear energy represented 17% of global electricity production, whereas by 2022, its share had dropped to just 9%.
The primary criticism of renewable energy sources is that wind turbines and solar panels do not generate capacity comparable to that of nuclear power plants. However, Asset Nauryzbayev, former head of KEGOC and an ecologist and economist, argues that the capacity of a nuclear power plant should be compared to a group of renewable energy installations rather than to a single one. When considered this way, it becomes feasible to generate comparable capacities and create a more reliable system overall. It is unlikely that an entire cluster of renewable energy installations would fail simultaneously, and repairs for renewable energy systems are generally simpler, faster, and more cost-effective than addressing a malfunction at a nuclear power plant.
Another argument made by opponents of renewable energy sources is that achieving energy output comparable to that of a nuclear power plant would require extensive land use. However, for Kazakhstan, which is the ninth largest country in the world, this is not a significant challenge. In fact, 58% of the country’s land consists of deserts and semi-deserts. Additionally, wind turbines do not impede agricultural activities on the land between them.
Renewable energy sources rely on natural conditions and cannot provide continuous energy generation. However, in areas like the Dzungarian Gate, strong winds blow consistently throughout the year. Installing a wind power plant near this natural wind tunnel, as Andrey Ozharovskiy suggests, could generate several hundred gigawatts of wind energy. A similar project has already been successfully implemented in the Shelek corridor, and seven additional sites are being considered for the construction of wind power plants.
Of course, no type of renewable energy source is entirely waste-free, and the issue of recycling wind turbine and solar panel components also raises concerns among environmentalists. However, unlike nuclear power plants, these energy sources do not require fuel, and the costs associated with decommissioning and waste storage are far lower in comparison.
A striking example is the nuclear reactor in Aktau. Although the decision to shut down the plant was made in 1999, it will take at least another 50 years to fully decommission it. The region pays 1.2 billion tenge annually for the maintenance of the inactive reactor, and these expenses are factored into the electricity tariff.
Geopolitical zugzwang
Official statements (1, 2, 3) often emphasize that building a nuclear power plant is primarily a commercial issue rather than a political one. This was partially true during the early planning stages. However, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has turned any potential dealings with the Kremlin into a political matter. As Russia has found itself in confrontation with Western countries and their allies, Kazakhstan’s government may find itself in a difficult position when choosing a contractor for the nuclear plant. Any decision could provoke dissatisfaction from either side, forcing the country to confront the question, “Who are you aligning with?”
Vadim Ni, director of the Social and Ecological Fund, suggests that the most likely choice for Kazakhstan will be Russia’s Rosatom, which is also the most prepared supplier, given that Rosatom’s nuclear power plants have been constructed in former Soviet countries. Russia’s influence in the nuclear energy sector continues to grow, as seen in its involvement in building nuclear plants in Turkey and Egypt.
The expert notes that the Chinese company also has a chance to be involved. Even if not selected as the primary contractor, China could collaborate with Russia and participate in the project as an alternative supplier.
However, the primary risk of involving Rosatom under the build-operate-transfer scheme is that it grants Russia direct control over the reactors and key energy infrastructure, potentially allowing for political leverage.
The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs conducted a study of the influence of Rosatom and the Kremlin on partner countries in the nuclear energy sector. Experts highlight that nations with close diplomatic ties to Russia are most dependent on its services for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Many of these countries are from the former socialist bloc, including Armenia, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Hungary, and Slovakia.
If Kazakhstan enters into a partnership with Rosatom, the company could control between 4% and 10% of the country’s energy production. This would push Kazakhstan’s goal of achieving energy independence from its northern neighbor further out of reach.
Researchers point out that Rosatom’s nuclear power plant projects are appealing because the company provides a turnkey solution, supplying all necessary components, specialists, and fuel. However, this comprehensive approach increases the risks of partnering with a Russian contractor. Supply disruptions can occur even without Rosatom’s intent, as seen with Turkey’s nuclear power plant, or could result from deliberate sabotage. The financial structure also presents opportunities for corruption, as demonstrated by a major corruption scandal involving Russia during the construction of a nuclear plant in South Africa. Moreover, using Rosatom’s specialists in a sensitive industry raises concerns about industrial espionage.
While many of these risks could arise with any foreign contractor, working with a Russian company poses a unique set of challenges due to the highly intertwined nature of the relationship. This includes deeper technological, financial (particularly with regard to energy pricing), and political dependencies, making the partnership with Rosatom especially close and interdependent.
We would like to thank Aliya Vedelikh, Communications Coordinator for the Climate Action Network for Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia, for her assistance in preparing this material.
This article was published with the support of “The Exchange”
You must be logged in to post a comment.