[adrianN]

That nuclear power plant cost roughly $10 billion and took thirty years from planning to commissioning. Wind turbines cost around $1.5M per MWp and have a capacity factor of about 0.3 or so, so those same ten billion could have bought roughly an equal amount of wind power which could've most likely been built a bit faster than 30 years time. Of course you need to add some storage for baseload capacity which will increase cost a bit, but then again you don't need to save money for decommissioning a radioactive hunk of steel and concrete when the plant reaches EOL, you don't have risks of nuclear proliferation, and no radioactive waste, and you don't lose 2GW of generation at once for ten days when a couple of turbines need some repairs, like when that power plant's transformers exploded.

Southern Belarus seems to be pretty well suited for solar power too, which might even be a little bit cheaper than wind turbines.

Nuclear is not terrible for saving CO2, but the benefits are not as dramatic as you make them seem.