On Completion of Khmelnytsky NPP Units

Currently, extensive discussions are ongoing regarding the construction of Units 3 and 4 of the Khmelnytsky Nuclear Power Plant (KhNPP). While some experts support this initiative, believing it will strengthen Ukraine’s energy sector, others oppose it, arguing that it is a hazardous and unprofitable project. Former Director of the State Nuclear Energy Department of the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine, Heorhii Kopchynskyi, shared his perspective with the Uatom.org Editorial Board regarding the completion of these KhNPP units.

The debate over completing the Khmelnytsky NPP units is increasingly resembling a ‘St. Vitus dance’. This is fueled by numerous, and sometimes contradictory, statements from energy sector experts. As a result, the passage of legislation for the completion of the power units is repeatedly stalled, preventing the launch of their detailed design phase.

I am confident that any rational person would support completing the construction of a million-kilowatt nuclear power unit at half the cost. This is especially true given Ukraine’s severe shortage of generating capacity and financial resources. However, some experts disagree and argue the opposite. They claim that the design of KhNPP Units 3 and 4 (V-320 series) is outdated and does not meet modern safety standards. However, it must not be overlooked that the nuclear power units currently in operation in Ukraine are based on reactor facilities of this type and sustain the country’s energy supply. Moreover, the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident have led to significant safety improvements in these reactors. Adding another unit of the same type would not compromise the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear energy sector in any way.

A proposal for cooperation in this area with the Škoda Czech company was thwarted. A similar situation is occurring with the set of V-320 equipment stored in Bulgaria. Some experts claim that this equipment is merely obsolete scrap. In reality, Bulgaria purchased this equipment back in Soviet times, making it its legal property. It remains unclear why Ukraine cannot use Bulgarian equipment to complete KhNPP Units 3 and 4.

There is considerable debate over the technical differences between various modifications of the V-320 reactor. Some argue that the Bulgarian version is incompatible with the existing structures of the Khmelnytsky NPP units. However, the Energoproekt design institute, which has thoroughly examined this issue, asserts that there are no unsolvable challenges in this regard.

The most crucial aspect overlooked by opponents of the Khmelnytsky NPP expansion is the growing challenge of replacing the capacity of existing nuclear power units. Their operational lifetimes have already been extended. While further extensions are possible, this cannot continue indefinitely, and the NPP units that currently sustain Ukraine will eventually have to be decommissioned. Additionally, the risk of equipment failures is increasing. Consider the case of the Lenin nuclear-powered icebreaker, where one of its reactors suffered a coolant leak.

Replacement generating capacity will be required at all Ukrainian NPPs. However, none of them currently has  a fully developed construction and assembly infrastructure, nor do they offer adequate housing for construction workers. The design institutions in Kyiv and Kharkiv are significantly weakened, and the nuclear engineering sector is in decline. Developing the necessary construction infrastructure for the nuclear industry will take several years. Therefore, preparations must begin immediately to ensure that replacement nuclear capacity can be introduced in the 2030s.

Strengthening Ukraine’s energy sector will also require the development of other types of power plants, including hydroelectric power plants, pumped storage facilities, renewable energy sources (solar and wind farms), and gas turbine plants. It is therefore essential to determine the optimal balance of contributions from these various sources to overall electricity generation.

Some advocates of renewable energy are convinced that wind and solar power alone can resolve all energy challenges. At the same time, they tend to ignore the inherent drawbacks of these energy sources, instead emphasizing their lower capital costs and shorter construction times. However, analysis shows that the capacity factor of wind and solar power plants does not exceed 30% annually, dropping to just a few percent in winter. By contrast, nuclear power plants operate at 85–90% capacity factor—three times higher than that of renewables. Moreover, the service life of renewable energy modules is approximately 25 years, which is 2.5 times shorter than that of nuclear reactors. Furthermore, the return on capital investment in NPPs is 7.5 times greater than that of wind and solar power. However, the most significant disadvantage of renewable energy is the unpredictability of electricity generation due to weather variability, rendering these sources nearly ineffective at night.

This conclusion is supported by the Texas energy crisis of 2021. As a result, more countries are turning to nuclear power, marking the beginning of a new wave of nuclear energy expansion. The commitments made by the United States and other nations (including Ukraine) to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050 are particularly noteworthy. Clearly, the vast energy potential of uranium (and, in the future, thorium), the high safety levels of third- and fourth-generation nuclear reactors, and the environmental advantages of nuclear power make it the cornerstone of the global energy sector.

However, nuclear energy itself could be at risk if the replacement of aging power units is not addressed in a timely manner. This is a reality that decision-makers must acknowledge. The future of Ukraine’s energy sector depends on their competence, efficiency, and the timeliness of the measures they implement. It is necessary to abandon the utopian vision of distributed energy systems, excessive concessions to renewable energy, and the chaos that currently dominates the so-called electricity market. Without doing so—even in wartime—Ukraine risks losing a stable and reliable energy future.