Russia’s nuclear plants are ageing. Who will pay to dismantle them?

Russia’s ageing nuclear fleet and the legacy of Soviet-era facilities present mounting decommissioning and waste-management challenges. Several reactors in Russia are already more than 50 years old, and Rosenergoatom has identified 35 units slated for decommissioning. The utility’s own estimates put the total cost of taking those units out of service at roughly €21 billion, while forecasting a funding gap of about €18.7 billion. Authorities have frequently deferred the most expensive phases of dismantling by placing shut reactors into long-term ‘‘safe’’ storage rather than proceeding to full dismantlement. That strategy shifts technical and financial burdens into the future but does not remove them; experts and NGOs warn that actual decommissioning costs often exceed early projections, citing examples such as Lubmin in Germany where estimates rose from €1 billion to €10 billion over time. Radioactive waste compounds the fiscal and technical challenge. Russia inherited roughly 774,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste from the Soviet period, and decommissioning 36 reactor units at eight plants is expected to create an additional ~800,000 cubic metres. Environmental groups have flagged that, based on Rosatom’s projections, decommissioning and remediation liabilities could approach or exceed the company’s net profits by around 2037, increasing the risk that obligations outpace available resources. Those domestic shortfalls have international implications because Russia is actively building and promoting nuclear projects overseas, including in countries such as Türkiye and Bangladesh. The article argues that partner countries should consider contingency plans if maintenance or eventual decommissioning cannot be carried out as intended, since political and economic upheaval in Russia could affect the long-term stewardship of facilities and waste. The piece also links broader patterns of environmental neglect and tightened budget priorities — including a shrinking share of federal spending on environmental protection amid rising defence expenditures — to greater likelihoods of deferred maintenance and heightened safety, financial, and political risks.