Serbia is considering a range of large-scale energy projects to secure long-term electricity supply, but analysts and industry observers caution that these plans carry very large price tags, extended timelines and significant technical and financing challenges. At the centre of the country’s evolving power strategy are three major ideas: the construction of a gas-fired power plant near Niš, a reversible hydropower (pumped storage) plant at Bistrica, and the eventual deployment of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) — each with very different cost profiles and maturity levels.
Under a recently signed bilateral agreement with Azerbaijan, Serbia expects to move forward with a 500 MW gas power plant in the Krušce area near Niš, a facility expected to cost around €600 million and targeted for completion by 2029. The project is pitched as a source of baseload generation that complements intermittent wind and solar output, though its final cost and schedule remain uncertain based on historical energy project delivery patterns in the region.
A much larger and more expensive undertaking is the Reversible Hydropower Plant (RHPP) Bistrica, conceived as a “giant battery” that can store surplus energy and dispatch it when demand peaks. The plant, planned on the Lim and Uvac river system in western Serbia, is designed for over 600 MW installed capacity and has undergone multiple cost revisions. Early figures in the mid-2020s placed the investment around €560 million, but most recent estimates — reflecting project scope increases and inflationary pressures — put the bill closer to €1.2 billion for the facility alone. Bistrica would play a pivotal role in stabilising the grid by balancing variable renewable generation.
Even more costly and long-term is the vision for modular nuclear power in Serbia. Small modular reactors (SMRs) — compact nuclear units with individual capacities from about 15 MW to 300 MW — are still largely in the early stages of commercial deployment globally, with only a handful of operational plants in countries such as Russia and China. Serbia lifted its moratorium on nuclear energy and state energy planners have acknowledged nuclear capacity as a strategic option after 2040, with preparatory regulatory and institutional steps through to 2032. Costs for SMR projects are difficult to pin down and depend heavily on technology choice, financing and scale, but comparable SMR initiatives internationally suggest total investments could span several billions of euros for utility-scale deployment.
Policy officials argue that combining flexible gas capacity, large-scale pumped storage and eventual nuclear units could enhance supply reliability and energy security. However, experts highlight that financing, permitting, technical expertise and regulatory frameworks will be decisive factors in turning these concepts into reality. They suggest prioritising projects with clearer price tags and nearer-term benefits, while continuing to monitor advances in modular nuclear technology before committing to multi-billion-euro deployments.
