Central Asia is on the cusp of an energy transformation. Expected economic growth and population increase to 100 million by 2050 are pushing the region’s countries toward new energy generation solutions. The key challenge is the growing electricity shortage, highlighted by a major blackout in January 2023 that affected Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan (RK) and Kyrgyzstan (KR). In response to this crisis, the authorities of the three countries, after a long break, decided to put the issue of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the region back on the agenda. Politik Central Asia looked at the energy status quo of the three republics and the prospects for peaceful nuclear power in Central Asia.

Kazakhstan: Pros and Cons of NPPs

For Kazakhstan, the history of the peaceful atom began in 1973, when a nuclear power plant with a 350 MW reactor started operating in Aktau (formerly Shevchenko). However, in 1999, the RK government decommissioned the reactor, although its residual resource could last for another 15-20 years. This step was due to the dual purpose of the reactor, which is capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. Kazakhstan, which gained independence and agreed to nuclear-free status, was forced to shut down the NPP.

At the same time, even before the reactor shutdown, the country had begun to discuss the need to build a new NPP. In particular, it was proposed to build a plant in the village of Ulken near Lake Balkhash. However, public protests quickly quelled the discussion.

The issue returned to the agenda in 2006, when Russian and Kazakh presidents Vladimir Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev signed a joint statement on cooperation in the use of peaceful nuclear energy. A year later, Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Energy was already considering projects to build medium-capacity VBER-300 reactors in Aktau. In 2008, public hearings on the construction of the NPP were disrupted by a protest, and in February 2009 the government postponed the project again. Six months later, however, Deputy Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Aset Magauov spoke of the authorities’ intentions to build the NPP by 2020.

In 2014, Kazatomprom and Rosatom signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the construction of a nuclear power plant. At that time, the approximate cost of a power unit with a capacity of over 1,000 MW was estimated at $5 billion. However, the project could not be launched due to a dispute between the companies over who would supply uranium to the facility.

At the same time, the French company Areva and Japanese Toshiba joined the competition to assist Kazakhstan help in developing peaceful nuclear energy. In 2015, Nursultan Nazarbayev even promised Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that the plant would be built by a Japanese contractor. But a year later, Energy Minister Kanat Bozumbayev backtracked, saying that there was a surplus of electricity in Kazakhstan, and therefore, no nuclear power plants would be built until 2023.

Kazakhstan’s new president, Kasym-Jomart Tokayev, said shortly after his election in 2019 that there were no plans to build a nuclear power plant and promised to hold a referendum “if necessary”. However, by May 2021, the president advised officials to engage in “persistent outreach about the importance of nuclear energy among citizens,” noting, however, that “the government has no plans to rush the construction of a nuclear power plant, but it should not be late either.” Less than six months later, in his address to the nation on September 1, 2021, Tokayev spoke about the impending electricity shortage and urged consideration of new generation source, such as nuclear power.

In September 2023, the head of state instructed the government to begin a comprehensive discussion of NPP construction, and in 2024, Tokayev announced a referendum on October 6, inviting citizens to vote “for” or “against” the NPP. 

This turn of events naturally intensified public discussion about Kazakhstan’s need for such a facility.

Thus, the authorities created a people’s headquarters in support of the NPP, which included politicians, opinion leaders and experts who began lobbying for the plant’s construction. Supporters of the NPP insist that the plant can ensure stable electricity production and strengthen the economic and technological independence of the republic.

In addition, as Timur Zhantikin, general director of Kazakhstan Nuclear Power Plants JSC, emphasized in a conversation with Politik, that Kazakhstan has a sufficient resource base for nuclear energy, as it accounts for 46% of the world’s primary uranium production. In 2023, uranium made up 74% of Kazakhstan’s energy exports, far surpassing oil. The country also has its own production of nuclear fuel components and access to uranium isotope enrichment services. The Ulba Metallurgical Plant operates a facility to produce finished nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants in the People’s Republic of China.

The emergence of NPPs, according to supporters of the idea, will also give an impetus to the development of innovative technologies in other industries.

Opponents point to serious safety risks, high construction and operation costs, and potential long-term consequences for taxpayers. Some experts argue that electricity generated by nuclear power plants could cost consumers 7-8 times more than coal-fired energy rates.

At the moment, four possible NPP projects are being considered – Russian, South Korean, Chinese and French. The estimated cost of building two units of the plant is  $10-15 billion, with the average cost of future generation expected to be 6-12 cents per kWh.

Photo: POLITIK

Renewable energy sources and the coal industry

At the beginning of 2024, Kazakhstan’s Minister of Energy, Almasadam Satkaliev said that the share of coal in electricity generation will almost halve to 34% by 2035. If the plan to develop the power industry is successfully implemented, the structure of installed capacity by fuel type will be as follows: renewable energy sources (RES) – 24.4%; hydroelectric power plants (HPP) – 10.8%; gas – 25.8%; coal – 34.3%; and nuclear power plants (NPP) – 4.7%. 

Meanwhile, in it 2022 market review, Samruk-Energo noted two scenarios for increasing the share of “clean” electricity by 2035 – with and without NPPs. According to the first “green” scenario, out of 152 billion kWh in 2035, 40% of the electricity would be generated from coal, 24% from gas, 0% from NPP, 7% from HPPs, 6% from small HPPs, 21% from wind power plants (WPP) , 2% from solar power plants (SPP).

The “green” scenario with NPP envisioned 40% of electricity being generated from coal, 18% from gas, 12% from NPPs, 7% from HPPs, 6% from small HPPs, 15% from WPPs, and 2% from SPPs.

Anyway, the volume of deficit in the RK power system exceeds 6 GW. To cover it and increase export potential, the RK Ministry of Energy has developed a plan to commission about 26 GW of new capacities and reconstruct existing power plants, which will provide an additional 5.6 GW.

Critics of NPPs often point to the need to expand the use of RES. According to preliminary calculations, in 2023 the share of RES in total electricity production amounted to about 6%, although in 2020 it was at the level of 3%. By 2030, Kazakhstan plans to increase this figure to 15%.

However, the story with RES is not so straightforward. Geo-ecologist and Chair of the Kazakhstan Ecoforum, Svetlana Mogilyuk, explained that producing 1 kWh of nuclear energy results in approximately 66 grams of carbon dioxide emissions, while wind energy emits 9 grams and solar energy emits 32 grams. However, the creation and disposal of RES stations leave a much larger carbon footprint than traditional fuels. Additionally, solar panels take up significant space, and the production of highly efficient panels is not yet well-established.

There are also issues with wind turbines: the speed and direction of wind flows make energy production unstable, often requiring alternative sources for backup. The installation of wind turbines can affect the migration of birds, insects and marine animals. The relatively low energy yield makes it necessary to install several turbines at once, which results in large one-off costs. One should not forget about the high level of noise produced by RES.

In turn, Aset Nauryzbayev, an energy specialist and former president of KEGOC (Kazakhstan Energy Grid Operating Company), an advocate of RES development, notes that solar and wind power is four times cheaper than nuclear energy. In addition, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the unit cost of installing solar panels in the U.S. decreased by more than half between 2013 and 2021, while the cost of onshore wind generators fell by 25%.

In the context of energy security and independence  

Meanwhile, experts emphasize that achieving carbon neutrality, which Kazakhstan is expected to reach by 2060, requires sectoral reforms, improving energy efficiency in industry, developing “green” transport and modernizing the housing stock to reduce heat losses.

And the NPP could help Kazakhstan in this endeavor. For example, if the plant is built, Kazakhstan will be able to strive for independent production and supply of nuclear fuel to the plant, allowing the country to avoid dependence on external players and reduce its vulnerability to geopolitical and economic risks associated with conflicts and sanctions.

Moreover, Kazakhstan, being one of the largest uranium producers in the world, can benefit economically by using its resource for domestic needs. Instead of exporting raw materials and then importing processed fuel, the country could retain the added value within its economy. This is especially important in the face of fluctuations in world markets, which can also help the country reduce the long-term costs of operating a nuclear power plant. Not to mention, that in nuclear generation the share of uranium production costs is no more than 10% of the total cost, meaning price fluctuations for this resource have little impact on the final cost of electricity. This contrasts with hydrocarbon generation, where 60-70% of the cost comes from raw material expenses.

The establishment of independent nuclear fuel production and the involvement of local contractors in NPP construction are two elements that contribute to technological and economic development. First, the creation of infrastructure for nuclear fuel production requires not only significant investments in technology, but also the training of highly qualified personnel, which stimulates scientific and technological progress. Second, the involvement of local contractors, as Rosatom does, allows customer countries not only to gain experience and technology, but also to strengthen the economy. For example, at the Akkuyu NPP project, about 40% of all works are performed by Turkish companies, and 80% of the workers at the construction site are Turkish citizens.

In addition, by managing the full cycle of nuclear fuel production and use, Kazakhstan will be able to make energy and environmental decisions while minimizing external influence, as well as reduce the risks of disruptions in nuclear fuel supplies due to changes in international politics.

Thus, Kazakhstan’s desire to produce nuclear fuel for its own NPPs can easily be explained by economic, energy and political factors.

Meanwhile, several experts suggest that before building the plant, attention should be paid to the hostilities near the Zaporizhzhya NPP in Ukraine and the Kursk NPP in Russia and the risks they pose. In addition, experts point to Kazakhstan’s lack of experience in operating large reactors, the problem of radioactive waste disposal and the significant water resources required for NPP operation. However, the RK Ministry of Energy assures that cooling of NPP reactors will not require significant volumes of water – no more than 63 million cubic meters per year will be used from Balkhash, which is only 0.33% of the lake’s natural evaporatione. Also under consideration is the possibility of using “dry cooling tower” technology, which eliminates water evaporation during cooling, although it increases the construction cost of the plant.

In the meantime, questions about the choice of NPP technologies and capacities, which are particularly important in the context of plant safety and efficiency, remain unanswered. Will Kazakhstan rely on proven but less innovative solutions or will it choose modern and potentially risky technologies?

Finally, in the context of global decarbonization and changes in energy markets, NPP construction is seen as a step towards reducing the carbon footprint. However, it also creates long-term liabilities: maintaining nuclear facilities and waste management require high costs and technological solutions throughout the entire lifecycle of the plant. Kazakhstan needs to calculate whether it can effectively meet these challenges.

Thus, issues of technology, safety, scale, and market needs remain central to the discussion of the NPP project.

Uzbekistan: easier said than done

The history of nuclear industry development in Uzbekistan after the collapse of the USSR is also full of ups and downs. Under President Islam Karimov, building a nuclear power plant in the country seemed impossible due to seismic activity in the region, a shortage of personnel, and potential dependence on a nuclear technology supplier.

While these challenges remain relevant today, with Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s rise to power, plans to build a nuclear power plant returned to the agenda. These plans were largely driven by Uzbekistan’s desire to overcome its dependence on natural gas, the backbone of the country’s energy system. According to the Ministry of Energy, about 85% of electricity is provided by gas-fired thermal power plants. However, over the past 20 years, Uzbekistan’s natural gas production has declined. If in 2000 the country produced about 4.9 billion cubic meters per month, in 2008 – its peak year – 5.9 billion cubic meters, in 2023 – already 4.3 billion cubic meters. This declined forced the government to search for alternative energy sources.

In December 2017, Rosatom and the government of Uzbekistan signed an agreement on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which included a project to build the country’s first NPP. In February 2019, the Concept for the Development of Nuclear Energy until 2029 was elaborated, which highlighted one of the key economic advantages of NPP: the ability to ensure stable electricity costs throughout the lifetime of the plant. As a result, the public and experts perceived the emergence of the plant as a practically solved issue.

In September 2018, an intergovernmental agreement was signed with Russia to build a 2.4 GW nuclear power plant. Rosatom promised to build two “Generation 3+” power units with VVER-1200 reactor units and a service life of 60 years. The priority location for the plant was chosen near Lake Tuzkan in Jizzak Region. According to the Uzatom agency, 14 out of 15 possible unfavorable factors are absent in this area, and the 15th  – underground water at a depth of six kilometers – is considered by experts to be a problem solvable with the help of modern technologies. The parties planned to conclude the main contract by the end of 2019 and start construction in 2020. In 2019, the branch of the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI) in Tashkent even started training specialists to operate the NPP.

Interestingly, the idea of NPP construction met almost no criticism within Uzbekistan, which could not be said for neighboring Kazakhstan, where local activists expressed extreme concern for the environmental safety of the entire region because of Tashkent’s intentions.

However, the plans worked out on paper faced not external pressure but the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. It was not until June 2021 that the IAEA Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) mission was able to visit Uzbekistan, confirming the country’s readiness to begin work at the construction site. In cooperation with the IAEA, a program was developed to improve human capacity and build nuclear infrastructure.

Nevertheless, after overcoming Covid, specific deadlines for the project’s realization suddenly disappeared from the news about the NPP construction. Rosatom began to declare the need for careful preparation of contracts. Meanwhile, Uzbekistan, including through statements by Energy Minister Jurabek Mirzamakhmudov, began emphasizing that “everything needs to be weighed and measured not 7 but 77 times.”

Many experts attribute the delays to the high construction cost – about $11 billion.

In addition, the delay has been affected by the development of renewable energy sources. According to the Ministry of Energy, 10 solar and wind power plants with a total capacity of 2.6 GW have been commissioned in the country in recent years, which is comparable to the capacity of the planned nuclear power plant, but much cheaper in terms of investment – $2 billion. Negotiations are currently underway with foreign partners for 32 “green” projects with a total capacity of 18.6 GW and a cost of $19 billion. Under the revised energy concept, it is planned to increase the share of RES in the country’s energy balance from the previously planned 10% to 40% by 2030.

Western sanctions against Russia, imposed in response to the military actions in Ukraine, could also have affected the delays in NPP construction. In particular, restrictions on Rosatom Overseas, the company responsible for promoting projects abroad. Expansion of the number of NPP “builders” is seen as a possible solution to this problem. At the Atomexpo-2024 forum in Sochi in March, Kirill Komarov, First Deputy Head of Rosatom, noted that various countries, including France and Korea, could participate in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Uzbekistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan in late May gave new impetus to the project. As a result of negotiations with Shavkat Mirziyoyev, a contract was signed for the construction of a small nuclear power plant in Uzbekistan. Analysts note that this step will not only accelerate the implementation of the nuclear project, but may also strengthen strategic cooperation between the two states in the energy sector.

The contract between Atomstroyexport (an engineering division of Rosatom) and the State Unitary Enterprise Directorate for NPP Construction under Uzatom provides for the construction of a 330 MW nuclear power plant in Jizzakh region. The project includes six RITM-200N reactors with a capacity of 55 MW each. Rosatom will act as the general contractor, but with the involvement of local companies. According to Rosatom’s statement, the construction will be fully financed by the Uzbek side, and the phased commissioning of the power units is scheduled for 2029-2033.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), small NPPs have an advantage over large NPPs due to lower costs and faster construction. However, there are currently very few examples of operating small NPPs, and the IEA predicts that such plants will enter the global market only by 2035.

Uzbekistan’s choice in favor of a small NPP project is likely driven not only by energy needs, but also by a desire to develop a nuclear raw material base and  gradually integrate nuclear power into the national system without significant risks to infrastructure. Mirziyoyev also emphasized that the project is of critical importance for Uzbekistan, given the country’s significant uranium reserves.

According to the IAEA, Uzbekistan ranks seventh in the world in uranium reserves and fifth in uranium production. The country does not consume uranium products, exporting them entirely. In July 2022, Uzbekistan’s president approved a plan to increase uranium production to 7.1 thousand tons by 2030, almost double the 2022 level.

Favorable uranium prices, caused by the West’s rejection of Russian supplies, provide opportunities to increase exports and establish uranium enrichment facilities. With the emergence of its own nuclear capacity, these plans would become more long-term.

One way or another, building a nuclear power plant, regardless of its size, is always associated with risks. In Uzbekistan’s case, one should also not forget about the shortage of qualified personnel.

Kyrgyzstan: as the cards fall

Plans to build a nuclear power plant in Kyrgyzstan first became known in January 2022, when Rosatom signed a memorandum on the possibility of building a small-capacity nuclear power plant based on two RITM-200N reactors of 55 MW each. A year later, Deputy Energy Minister Sabyrbek Sultanbekov noted the need to increase the capacity of the future NPP to 300 MW.

Experts emphasize that a small NPP may be better suited for Kyrgyzstan’s energy system than large plants. Alexei Likhachev, head of Rosatom, said the small NPP in Kyrgyzstan could be the corporation’s first such oversaes project. If construction is approved, the plant is expected to be commissioned after 2028.

The timing of the project has become a key point of contention between supporters and opponents of nuclear power in Kyrgyzstan. The country’s energy system is almost 90% dependent on hydropower plants built during the Soviet era. However, despite its rich water resources, with an estimated potential of 18.5 GW, water scarcity in Central Asia has led to a drop in hydropower generation and provoked serious economic problems.

In July last year, the authorities were forced to introduce a three-year emergency regime in the energy sector due to declining water levels in the rivers. The country faced a technological dilemma: to develop RES with a capacity of 7 GW or to consider at nuclear energy. At the moment, there is no available information on the final decision of the KR authorities on the choice between RES and nuclear energy.

However, in recent years, for example, the main local “lingering construction” – the Kambarata HPP-1 project on the Naryn River – has been resumed. It was possible to bring it back to life only after Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan agreed to it, since these countries need 99% of the water in the Naryn River for irrigating agricultural land in the summer.

In 2012, the governments of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic signed an agreement on the construction of a cascade of HPPs on the Naryn River, consisting of four stations and Kambarata HPP-1. The total planned capacity of the cascade was to be 237.7 MW. But in 2016, the Kyrgyz parliament unilaterally terminated the agreement, as Bishkek believed that the Russian side would not be able to fulfill its obligations to finance the project worth 24 billion rubles.

In January 2023, the energy ministers of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan signed a Roadmap for the implementation of the new Kambarata HPP-1 construction project. It is planned that the 1.86 GW HPP will generate 5 billion kWh of electricity per year. According to preliminary estimates, the height of the dam will be 256 meters, and the volume of water accumulated at the station will be more than 5 billion cubic meters. The cost of the new project is estimated at $5-6 billion, the implementation period is about 10 years. To do this, the parties decided to create a joint-stock company, where Kyrgyzstan will own a 34% share, and Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – 33% each. After the completion of construction, the assets of the Kambarata HPP-1 will be fully transferred to the Kyrgyz side.

Rosatom also intends to diversify its portfolio of “clean” energy in Kyrgyzstan. In March, NovaWind JSC (Rosatom’s wind energy subsidiary) announced the signing of an agreement with the Kyrgyz Ministry of Energy to develop and implement a project to build renewable energy facilities with a total capacity of about 1 GW. The first stage involves a pilot wind power plant with a capacity of 100 MW in the Issyk-Kul region. The second stage involves exploring sites for renewable energy facilities with a total capacity of up to 900 MW. In addition to the traditional questions about NPP safety, the availability of qualified personnel, and environmental risks, the potential for economic dependence on the Kremlin is being actively discussed in Kyrgyzstan. Currently, the country’s economy and social sphere are almost entirely dependent on supplies of Russian oil products and gas. The lack of domestic uranium production can only increase this dependence.

Financial analyst Marat Musuraliev, who participated in the development of feasibility studies for power, hydro, and thermall power plants, confirms these concerns. In his opinion, in the country “everything is still up in the air, people are being taught about the topic of nuclear power plants, but the wave of confrontation around nuclear power plants will be greater than in Kazakhstan.” He recalls that among the currently existing uranium enrichment technologies, the most energy-efficient is that of the Russian Federation, which uses ninth-generation centrifuges.

The idea of an NPP seems enticing, the analyst continues, but the problem is that it requires enormous investments. A single power unit with a capacity 1.2 GW can cost $5 billion or more. Another issue with NPPs is the low efficiency of reactors: the efficiency of RITM-200 power units (55 MW) is 23.9%, the efficiency of VVER-1200 reactors (1.2 GW) is 34%. The nuclear reactor will produce 55 MW of electricity, but also 198 MW of thermal energy, which, being non-commercial, will either be emitted into the atmosphere through cooling towers or into a storage pond, creating environmental problems. For comparison: modern equipment for the production of thermal energy, which Turkish companies will supply to the thermal power plant in Bishkek, has an efficiency of 95% when running on natural gas; 91% when the same boilers run on fuel oil/furnace fuel.

In Yakutia, Chukotka (due to the enormous distances required for fuel transportation and high logistics costs) and Bangladesh (due to the high population and population density), nuclear power plants may be competitive, Musuraliyev believes. But in Kyrgyzstan, given the enormous costs, depreciation costs and long construction period, a nuclear power plant will be expensive and will also make the country almost century-long dependent on Moscow.

He reminds that with electricity consumption in the Kyrgyz Republic at about 17.2 billion kWh in 2023, domestic production amounted to only about 14.7 billion kWh, leaving a15% deficit that had to be imported.

The problem of energy deficit in Kyrgyzstan can be solved through renewable energy sources, the expert is sure.

To be continued

The prospects for Central Asian countries to join the ranks of states using nuclear energy should be considered based on the characteristics of each of the republics. At the same time, as Shavkat Mirziyoyev noted at the 6th Consultative Meeting of Central Asian Heads of State in Astana, coordinated work of the countries of the region in the field of energy, including the development of peaceful nuclear power, is also important.

Surveys conducted among residents of Central Asia show that most people are not sufficiently informed about the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. In this regard, it is necessary to conduct more active information campaigns and implement special educational programs. This will help to increase the level of understanding among the population, dispel myths and overcome fears associated with nuclear power plants.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are actively considering nuclear energy, but each country faces its unique pchallenges. Kazakhstan, with the largest uranium reserves and striving for carbon neutrality by 2060, faces challenges in choosing technologies and the need to convince the public of the importance of NPPs. Uzbekistan, aiming to reduce its dependence on gas and increase its energy capacity, faces problems related to financing and competition from renewable energy sources. Kyrgyzstan, which is dependent on hydropower, sees its salvation in small NPPs, but it must find a balance between nuclear energy and renewable sources, as well as take into account the risks of economic dependence on external players.

The energy systems inherited from the Soviet Union are closely interconnected, and therefore the separate development of energy sectors without taking into account the interests of neighbors is impossible. This approach should be key in discussing the role of nuclear energy in the future of Central Asia.