2013 Bulgarian referendum on nuclear energy

[GMantis]

A referendum will be held on the 27th January on whether to "develop nuclear energy in Bulgaria by constructing a new nuclear power plant". The nuclear plant in question is the long planned, partially constructed (with several interruptions) Belene NPP This is only the fourth time that a referendum has been held in Bulgaria since 1878 (the others being in 1922, 1946 and 1971) and the first time that it has initiated by popular demand , so it has of course raised considerable interest. On top of that, 2013 is an election year, so that the whole referendum has become part of the election campaign with various parties hoping to benefit from its results.

Before adding anything else, one thing must be made clear: it would take a miracle for the referendum to succeed. Not because the building of a new nuclear plant is unpopular (quite the opposite in fact), but because the law on referendums requires turnout to equal or exceed the turnout of the last parliamentary election. Considering that parliamentary elections always have the highest turnout of any elections here and the obvious incentive of opponents to boycott the referendum, the law was obviously made so that no referendum could ever succeed. As I mentioned once, the political class here doesn't like to share its power. There is a silver lining in that if turnout exceeds 20%, parliament will have to consider the issue raised in the referendum, though no one knows how that will happen.

Next post is about the background of the nuclear plant and after that I'll add a short post about the current events around the referendum.

[GMantis]

Belene Nuclear Power Plant was first proposed back in 1981, with the first work starting the next year. By 1990, about 40% of the first reactor was completed, with most of the equipment already having being delivered. In that year, however, with Democracy arriving and along with it a massive economic crisis and with growing concern about the safety of the plant, the construction was stopped.

In the following years, the plant was nearly forgotten. A far more important issue at the time was whether to continue operating the already existing nuclear power plant at Kozloduy. This issue was terribly mishandled and after four of its reactors had to be closed prematurely, in 2002 it was decided that constructing a new power plant would be a way to replace the power production from Kozloduy that would be lost in the next years. It took until 2005 for a decision to be reached on what type of plant would be constructed and until 2007 for the future nuclear plant to be certified by the European Age. In 2008, with great aplomb, construction was restarted, with the optimistic idea of constructing one reactor within 6.5 and the second within 7.5 years.

Then the problems started. The Bulgarian government wasn't really able (or willing) to pay entirely for the plant. So a foreign investor was sought. By 2008 a deal was seemingly at hand with the German company RWE but then disputes arose between them and the Russian company who would build the reactors. What happened later is disputed, but in any case after the then ruling grand coalition was defeated in the 2009 elections and replaced with a government that was much more hostile to Russia, RWE apparently decided that the project was too uncertain and withdrew.

After that a three year saga began. Prime minister Borisov, while supporting Belene on paper (due to its considerable popularity), but being under considerable US pressure to abandon the plant, adopted a vacillatory attitude, refusing to make much effort in finding new investors or speeding up the project. By 2012 there was seemingly an agreement (where the costs would be split between Bulgaria and the Russian company Rossatom, with Bulgaria having the majority of shares) when, suspiciously soon after a visit by Hillary Clinton, he completely flip-flopped on the issue and decided to abandon the construction of the nuclear plant. This reversal caused massive outrage and the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which had been one of the strongest backers of the new nuclear part, organized a campaign to gather signatures to force the government to hold a referendum on the issue. With over 750 thousand signatures gathered, this was more than successful and the government had to organize and referendum.

[GMantis]

Of course, no Bulgarian government wants to surrender power, so the ruling party immediately took steps to manipulate the referendum. First and most significantly, the question was changed. The word "Belene" was taken out, leaving just the generic "new nuclear plant". In this way, even if the referendum succeeded by some miracle, the government could wriggle out of doing anything concrete, as "new nuclear plant" could be interpreted in several different ways, for example by constructing new reactors at Kozloduy (more expensive, would take more time.
With the new question, GERB suddenly decided that it supported a new nuclear power plant, as long as it wasn't Belene. A likely explanation was that if the referendum succeeded despite their opposition, BSP could use the result as evidence of support for them, so they hoped to drown out this by jumping on the bandwagon. Then, in another absurd flip-flop, Borisov decided this month that he was actually against a new nuclear plant. This was despite GERB registering as an organization that would support the "Yes" side, which should have them thrown out, but the tame electoral commission decided to ignore this. The one good thing that came out of these shenanigans was that GERB now encouraged a "No" vote, raising turnout, most likely deciding that a blowout result against them would look bad and this in an election year.

The other parties have taken predictable positions on the issue. The old right-wing parties are reflexively against any cooperation with Russia and have been most vociferously against. The new political party of Meglena Kuneva, who as chief Bulgarian negotiator with the EU has most responsibility for the premature closing of most of the reactors of Kozloduy, obviously is not satisfied with her past deeds and has called for a boycott, so that she can have a hand in the closing of another nuclear plant

With support for the nuclear plant being clearly in the majority, but with turnout most likely well bellow the necessary, the whole referendum seems increasingly less a dispute on a new nuclear power plant and more of a general recital for this year's election...

[GMantis]

I'm not a nuclear opponent, but I do have to question the economics of building new nuclear plants at this point.

The economics have been investigated by an independent agency and the general conclusion is that the plant would be profitable. One must also consider the economics of effectively throwing away all the considerable resources already invested in the project or the economics of having to import electricity from abroad after Kozloduy and several other big plants close in a few years or the economics of having to use ever more expensive green energy...

[GMantis]

Do you have any information on the reactor type that is planned?

A friend of mine has on behalf of the Austrian government investigated a similar project in Ukraine - building a new reactor on the remains of a construction that was never finished after 1989. While all official documents stated it would be a new generation, failsafe reactor, she discovered that the layout of the existing building only permits installation of a (slightly modified) Russian standard, Chernobyl-type reactor. In fact, that was also what they planned to install - just that they relabeled it as new-generation failsafe model for convenience sake.

In general, I doubt that there is much economic point in using the left-overs of a project that was abandoned more than 20 years ago. Any still existing installations need to be taken out and redone, so the only thing you may use is a 25-year old concrete structure, built according to soviet standards and practices (i.e. low cement and steel content, as functionnaires and workers had better use for it), and a lay-out that is probably not conforming anymore to the state of the art.

The reactor planned is a VVER, which is nothing like the one in Chernobyl, quite the opposite in fact. While the Chernobyl type reactors have a positive void coefficient and thus produce more power when they get hotter, the VVER type has a negative void coefficient, so that the reactor produces less power if it overheats.

And while construction started a long time ago, it has now been considerably updated to comply with modern standards. In fact last year, stress tests were carried out, showing no problems.
Also, VVER reactors are still being constructed in many countries, especially the newer version, like the one that was planned to be installed in Belene, so it's not really a left-over from Soviet times.

So BSP if for or against?

BSP is the one who organized the signature gathering campaign and is of course now pushing strongly for a "Yes" vote in the referendum.

This requirement for the referendum to be valid only if turnout reaches the level of the last parliamentary election is crazy.

It's not that crazy if you consider that the main preoccupation of those making the law was to make certain that no referendum could ever succeed. That would set a precedent of the people wanting to decide important matters for themselves and that's probably the last thing most of our politicians want.

[GMantis]

This requirement for the referendum to be valid only if turnout reaches the level of the last parliamentary election is crazy.

This whole project is crazy.

As Franknburger said, believing that you can effectively and safely use a layout built more than 20 years ago to make a nuclear power plant that abides with present day regulations that have drastically raised expectations is just foolish. You'd have to practically build everything from scratch if you wanted this to be perfectly safe, and maybe it would even be better to build everything from scratch elsewhere, because the abandoned building may have deteriorated through ages.

Anyway I am seldom in favor of building new nuclear power plants, and where would they get the uranium ? Yeah, that's it... Power auto-sufficiency ? I don't think so...

The thing is, the planned reactor does abide with modern regulations. That was determined even before they started building it again. And while parts of the plant were constructed in the 80s, much work was undertaken to update the needed infrastructure even before the reactors could be installed. These are the resources that would be effectively thrown away if thre reactor construction was abandoned, as I mentioned above.
Also, uranium is very far from being exhausted, so your second argument doesn't make sense at all.
In conclusion, you are raising objections that were relevant ten or more years ago. Now that these problems have been addressed, the question is whether to construct a new, very much beneficial nuclear plant of a modern design or whether to throw away all the money that has already been invested in its construction.

[GMantis]

I realize that I might not be the most neutral source on this topic, so have a look here for more details on the Belene Nuclear Power Plant and which also addresses the points raised by Franknburger and Zanas.

[GMantis]

Do you have any information on the reactor type that is planned?

The reactor planned is a VVER, which is nothing like the one in Chernobyl, quite the opposite in fact. While the Chernobyl type reactors have a positive void coefficient and thus produce more power when they get hotter, the VVER type has a negative void coefficient, so that the reactor produces less power if it overheats.

O.k., so it shall be a pressurised water reactor. Safer as the Chernobyl type, but still risky (Fukuchima was a pressurised water reactor as well). Knowing Bulgaria a bit, I would be particularly concerned about earthquake risks. In fact, as this document (in German) notes, a major earthquake in 1977 killed more than 120 people in the immediate neighbourhood of Belene, and the  Bulgarian Academy of Science in 1991 ruled out Belene as a reactor site due the significant earthquake risk.

Belene is not exactly in danger of being swamped by a tsunami, so comparisons with Fukushima are not entirely relevant here. Earthquake risks certainly exist, however reactors are generally built to a higher standarts than buildings made of pre-fabricated concrete, like the three blocks that collapsed in that earthquake. The reactor type that was planed is certainly capable of surviving earthquakes of the magnitude that are possible in the region. As for the report by BAS, it didn't actually rule out Belene as a reactor site (using an environmentalist price winner as a source on Nuclear Plants is a somewhat risky approach), though it pointed out the possible risks and the need of further investigation and better safeguards against earthquakes. Modern reactor types are certainly better equipped to handle these risks and more recent stress tests (in 2011) have proven that the reactor type is safe for this level of seismicity.

The thing is, the planned reactor does abide with modern regulations. That was determined even before they started building it again. And while parts of the plant were constructed in the 80s, much work was undertaken to update the needed infrastructure even before the reactors could be installed. These are the resources that would be effectively thrown away if thre reactor construction was abandoned, as I mentioned above.

The German Wikipedia page on the project mentions that 80% of the equipment had already been delivered until 1990, and partly been installed. Either (i) this old equipment miracolously confirms with today's safety standards, (ii) it has to be completely de-installed and replaced, which will be extremely costly, or (iii) somebody pretends building a state-of-the-art reactor while in fact using 25-year old Russian equipment. From what my friend told me about the similar project in Ukraine, (iii) looks most likely to me.

Your sources do not inspire much confidence (Wikipedia?!). The article I provided mentions that one of the conditions of the contract with the Russian company making the plant is that they would remove the formerly delivered equipment. The reactor being constructed is a modern type (according to the European commission, it's in "compliance with European Utility Requirements") , certainly not the one that they were planing to construct in the 80s. So it's actually closer to (ii), though since at least part of the work done in the 80s doesn't have to be done again, it's probably cheaper than to build new nuclear reactors at Kozloduy.

Also, uranium is very far from being exhausted, so your second argument doesn't make sense at all.

According to the German Wikipedia page, again, the deal includes uranium supplies from Russia, as well as shipping the nuclear waste back to Russia for re-processing / final storage. As such, uranium supply may not be a fundamental problem, but you might worry about being dependent on Rusia for 25% of your power supply. Remember Ukraine and Russian natural gas ...

Last but not least,  Belene is located on the Danube river, and there seems to be massive opposition forming across the river in Romania. As EU member, Bulgaria might be well advised to take relations to its EU neighbours into account when taking decisions.

Dependence on Uranium can't really be compared to dependence on oil or gas, even if the volume involved is considered.  And Uranium is probably a more reliable resource in the long than gas or oil as well. Also, is dependence on Turkey (which has no problems whatsoever in building nuclear plants, incidentally) really better than dependence on Russia?

As for Romania, considering their long history of operating factories that are environmentally damaging to Bulgarian Danube cities and that they operating a nuclear plant close to the Bulgarian border and closer to Vrancea (the epicenter of the 1977 earthquake), their hypocritical objections can't really be taken very seriously. Also, is the opposition in Romania really that unified and strong? Only last week the director of their nuclear power plant appeared at a public meeting in Bulgaria to speak for the construction of Belene, for example.

[GMantis]

It can - it must - but it really only becomes highly relevant if you want to follow the kind of clueless hacks who still think we can supplant all the fossil plants with nuclear power. (Which includes John McCain.)

It can be compared, but the comparison still seems to be in favor in favor of nuclear powers - it has been estimated that uranium could last for centuries. And no one is arguing for such a thing here. Bulgaria has after all, substantial coal reserves, not to mention lots of Hydro-electrical plants.

[GMantis]

It can - it must - but it really only becomes highly relevant if you want to follow the kind of clueless hacks who still think we can supplant all the fossil plants with nuclear power. (Which includes John McCain.)

It can be compared, but the comparison still seems to be in favor in favor of nuclear powers - it has been estimated that uranium could last for centuries.

Not if America were to do that. (Not that actually going to happen, of course, but that is how some nuclearhappy people do talk.) Obviously one plant more or less in Bulgaria doesn't affect the calculations.

Of course, there is supposed to be lots of uranium in seawater, but considering its price of extraction, using such uranium would eliminate most of the advantages of nuclear plants.

[GMantis]

It can - it must - but it really only becomes highly relevant if you want to follow the kind of clueless hacks who still think we can supplant all the fossil plants with nuclear power. (Which includes John McCain.)

It can be compared, but the comparison still seems to be in favor in favor of nuclear powers - it has been estimated that uranium could last for centuries. And no one is arguing for such a thing here. Bulgaria has after all, substantial coal reserves, not to mention lots of Hydro-electrical plants.

Hydro-power, especially small-scale, alongside with wind (mountains->thermic winds) seem to me a much more promising path for Bulgaria to energetic self-sufficiency than investing billions of Euros into outdated (i.e. using a 1980's plant layout) nuclear technology - also in terms of income and employment creation in rural / mountaineous regions, and  effects on local manufacturing (Bulgaria possesses the kind of manufacturing base that could develop into component suppliers for wind and water turbines!).

I'm afraid that reaching self-sufficiency (and self-sufficiency is a dubious prospect anyway, Bulgaria now exports electricity) on wind and water power is a pipe dream. We already have so many hydroelectric plants that building more would have the risk of of our river running dry (even those who have already been built have caused for example the Maritsa river to lose its navigability). As for wind power, Bulgaria is not exactly a country whose winds are powerful and constant enough for such plants to be efficient, except if they are built on mountaintops, which does not strike me as either cost-efficient or being able to provide much employment. Incidentally, the area where the Belene nuclear plant is being built could certainly use some help in increasing employment, as it's one of the most economically areas in the country.

Regarding your claim of the plant being on 1980's layout, the reactors are of a far more modern type, as the article I linked to clearly states, so this criticism seems misplaced. I'm not certain whether Bulgaria could be able to produce the kind of components needed for wind plants, but using nuclear energy does have a benefit on our scientific development, so it's not without indirect domestic benefits as well.

[GMantis]

Hydro-power, especially small-scale, alongside with wind (mountains->thermic winds) seem to me a much more promising path for Bulgaria to energetic self-sufficiency than investing billions of Euros into outdated (i.e. using a 1980's plant layout) nuclear technology - also in terms of income and employment creation in rural / mountaineous regions, and  effects on local manufacturing (Bulgaria possesses the kind of manufacturing base that could develop into component suppliers for wind and water turbines!).

As for wind power, Bulgaria is not exactly a country whose winds are powerful and constant enough for such plants to be efficient, except if they are built on mountaintops, which does not strike me as either cost-efficient or being able to provide much employment.

According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here is a map of Bulgaria's wind energy potential from the European Wind Atlas

The black areas are pretty much mountaintops, which would pose difficulties both in construction and maintenance. Usage of biomass as fuel has the unpleasant side effect of increasing food prices. And I'm a bit skeptical about the part about the hydroelectric plants. Privatization is not some panacea, not to mention that a significant part of those plants have been privatized, with not much benefit.

Incidentally, the area where the Belene nuclear plant is being built could certainly use some help in increasing employment, as it's one of the most economically areas in the country.

Since when? The last time I worked in Pleven (which is - I concede - already ten years ago), it was among the economically strongest regions in Bulgaria aside from the Sofia region and the Black Sea coast.

The city itself might be economically strong, but that certainly doesn't apply for the region around it and it didn't apply 10 years ago as well. For example, in 1999 the North Central planing region was fifth out of six in GDP per capita and Pleven province, especially outside Pleven is certainly not the best part od the region. It's certainly not quite as bad as the Northwest, but they're certainly behind most of southern Bulgaria and the Black Sea coast.

I'm not certain whether Bulgaria could be able to produce the kind of components needed for wind plants.

It can - trust me on that. I have been doing studies on Bulgaria's technological potential for the German Ministry of Economy.

That's good and I'm not saying that this technology shouldn't be developed, but if it brings any benefits, they are likely to be very long term, so I don't see why we shouldn't utilize a proven and profitable technology at the same time.

[GMantis]

The city itself might be economically strong, but that certainly doesn't apply for the region around it and it didn't apply 10 years ago as well.

It actually did (and propably still does) apply for the region close to Pleven, but - having gone through the old date again - I agree that Belene (unlike neighbouring Nikopol) never had a particularly strong economy. However, ten years ago (and I assume it has stayed like that), the really severe economic problems started once you moved out of the Danube plain and into the mountains.

Apart from a few port cities, the area close to the Danube has never been particularly prosperous either. In any case, in recent years northern Bulgaria (except the area around Varna and Ruse) has had certainly slower economic growth than southern Bulgaria. Pleven province, for example, has been 18 out of 28 in average wages last year.

The black areas are pretty much mountaintops, which would pose difficulties both in construction and maintenance.

Of course wind energy areas are mountainous (but not neccesarily mountain tops), because it is these mountains that create thermic winds. That in itself is no problem for construction and maintenance (to the opposite - foundation works are much easier on sold rock than in marshy plains). The lack of adequate roads, however, may be a problem. But, looking at the map, there are a lot of high-yield wind generation areas with reasonable road access, such as the Sofia basin,  the area around Pernik, (parts of ) the Rila mountains, and the Balkan close to N 6 and N 36. And- coming back to the previous point - I am still of the opinion that it is the mountain regions that need most employment generation, and wind energy (and hydropower) can help to achieve this.

So considering the expense of building these wind plants, then the roads to them, them their maintenance, is there any reason to believe that the power produced by them will be able to recoup those expenses? Or will they (as so many other wind plants) be relying on EU subsidies?

Usage of biomass as fuel has the unpleasant side effect of increasing food prices.

Potentially, yes, especially under the current EU agricultural policies. However, there is enormous biofuel potential that is still unused and not affecting food supply, e.g. wood pellets (logging / sawmill / furniture industry residues), manure (as long as the use of anti-biotics is controlled), and post-harvest remains (i.e. not the whole maize plant, as currently, but what remains of the plant once the corn is harvested).

Again, this seems like an interesting idea (though like the other proposals, it will probably only have a secondary role in the production of power in the future), though I'm obviously concerned at the mention of EU agricultural policies (considering that we are in the EU) and the usage of wood from logging, considering how our forests are being mercilessly exploited even now.

And I'm a bit skeptical about the part about the hydroelectric plants. Privatization is not some panacea, not to mention that a significant part of those plants have been privatized, with not much benefit.

In theory, it should be possible to achieve substantial output gains from modernising existing hydropower installations. Privatisation is a means to this end, geared at mobilising the capital required for modernisation. if this has not worked out so far, there is probably something wrong with the business environment and/ or the way privatisation has been done.
In theory, again, Bulgaria, with its mountainous terrain, should still provide huge potential for small-scale hydropower generation. But then, again, it depends on the business environment whether this potential is utilised or not. 

I was skeptical about privatization, considering that many of our smaller reservoirs have been given over to private users and the poor maintenance they have been provided has been blamed in several severe cases of flooding recently.
And yes, there is probably scope for further construction of hydroelectric plants. But has this study considered the effects of building more of them. As I mentioned above, our not exactly very big in any case.

I'm not certain whether Bulgaria could be able to produce the kind of components needed for wind plants.

It can - trust me on that. I have been doing studies on Bulgaria's technological potential for the German Ministry of Economy.

That's good and I'm not saying that this technology shouldn't be developed, but if it brings any benefits, they are likely to be very long term, so I don't see why we shouldn't utilize a proven and profitable technology at the same time.

Proven technology? To my knowledge, this would be the first time in history that a large scale investment project abandonded some 20 years ago is succesfully restarted and completed. This is risky, risky, risky - from a pure engineering and economic perspective alone, not to speak about political (Russian uranium), seismic, and environmental risks.

Oh-and about seismic risk and stress tests: Has anybody yet assessed the riek that an earthquake could damage the reactor's supply of coolng water (I assume it will be pumped in via pipes from the Danube)?  What if an earthquake damages power transmission lines out of the plant - the reactor will need to be shut down to prevent transformer destruction. O.k., there will probably be a back-up diesel power generator to ensure proper reactor cooling. Unless, of course, that generator (or the fuel tank, or the fuel pipes) has also been damaged by the earthquake... You don't need a Tsunami to end up like Fukushima!

And now tell me again that all these eventualities had already been properly considered in the plant layout thirty years ago ..

Sorry, didn't I mention multiple times that this a modern reactor type? I posted an article that proved what I was saying, three times. What's the point of this discussion if you're just going to repeating the same thing over and over again, without even bothering to read the article I linked to? The whole project has already been investigated extensively both from the point of economics and safety. Substantial work has already been done in preliminary work. That's the whole scandal here - an already advanced and tested project is being abandoned for political reasons. I very much doubt that any of your arguments were the reason why the government suddenly flip-flopped completely on this nuclear plant, considering they were supporting it for the three previous years, even before the stress tests and the favorable opinion on the economic issues was delivered. It's not even some environmental opposition from the EU, as the European commission delivered a favorable opinion on this plant back in 2007. It is entirely opposition from the US, which is against any development of Russian energy projects (and no, I don't think that having to import electricity from our neighbors is better than installing a Russian reactor). As I mentioned, the whole project was canceled suspiciously soon after Clinton herself visitied Bulgaria. So yes, I undertand your concerns, but they're misplaced. This is not what the whole abandonment of the project and referendum is about.

Regarding the potential dangers you described, considering that a key moment of the Fukushima disaster was the flooding of the emergency generator by a tsunami, I still thinks that comparisons with Fukushima are not entirely relevant. Regarding the stress tests, the above scenarios have certainly been considered, they wouldn't be much of stress. The planned emergency diesel generators would have stored fuel for at least twenty days and they would have the same protection against earthquakes as the reactors themselves.

Fascinating debate. I really don't have anything to add, but I stand with Franknburger on this one.

Have you also avoided reading my arguments

[GMantis]

So disregarding arguments for or against....what kind of result can we expect?

A victory for the "Yes" side, likely with above 60%, but with turnout well below the necessary (4,345,450 or well above 60%) for the referendum to be valid, though very likely over the 20% needed for parliament to be forced to consider the referendum question.

[GMantis]

When you say consider, is it like there ought to be a vote in Parliament on the referendum question, or they ought to "consider" the issue and maybe debate on it when they have time some day between cheese and dessert ?

Parliament must reach a decision on the question within three months, though there is apparently considerable leeway in what decision they will take. 

[GMantis]

Usage of biomass as fuel has the unpleasant side effect of increasing food prices.

Potentially, yes, especially under the current EU agricultural policies. However, there is enormous biofuel potential that is still unused and not affecting food supply, e.g. wood pellets (logging / sawmill / furniture industry residues), manure (as long as the use of anti-biotics is controlled), and post-harvest remains (i.e. not the whole maize plant, as currently, but what remains of the plant once the corn is harvested).

Again, this seems like an interesting idea (though like the other proposals, it will probably only have a secondary role in the production of power in the future), though I'm obviously concerned at the mention of EU agricultural policies (considering that we are in the EU) and the usage of wood from logging, considering how our forests are being mercilessly exploited even now.

You misunderstood me with respect to logging. Woodfuel is not meant to include the full logs (they are much too precious for that), but the logging residues, i.e bark, branches, etc.. that are to date often left in the forest after the peeled log has been extracted. Sustainable forest management is another issue, of course ..

That was my main concern, considering the current reality.

Proven technology? To my knowledge, this would be the first time in history that a large scale investment project abandonded some 20 years ago is succesfully restarted and completed. This is risky, risky, risky - from a pure engineering and economic perspective alone, not to speak about political (Russian uranium), seismic, and environmental risks.

Sorry, didn't I mention multiple times that this a modern reactor type? I posted an article that proved what I was saying, three times. What's the point of this discussion if you're just going to repeating the same thing over and over again, without even bothering to read the article I linked to? The whole project has already been investigated extensively both from the point of economics and safety. Substantial work has already been done in preliminary work. That's the whole scandal here - an already advanced and tested project is being abandoned for political reasons. I very much doubt that any of your arguments were the reason why the government suddenly flip-flopped completely on this nuclear plant, considering they were supporting it for the three previous years, even before the stress tests and the favorable opinion on the economic issues was delivered. It's not even some environmental opposition from the EU, as the European commission delivered a favorable opinion on this plant back in 2007. It is entirely opposition from the US, which is against any development of Russian energy projects (and no, I don't think that having to import electricity from our neighbors is better than installing a Russian reactor).

Yes, I did read the articles you have posted. What they are saying is that there are two reactor models - VVER 1000, the model that was included in the original, pre-1990 design, and VVER 1200 (AES 92), which includes an additional passive heat removal system in the form of a watertank & cooling system built on top of the containment dome.

The EU has not delivered a favourite opinion on the project as a whole. It has only stated that, if at all, a VVER 1200 (AES 92) model should be prefered. To cite from your linked article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're incorrect about AES 92 being a 1200 MWe model, there are also AES 92 with a capacity of 1000 MWe. See, for example: "h. The AES-92 design has VVER-1000 reactors considered to be Genereation III". In fact, the article that is used for a source for the statement you cited states exactly that "According to the notification received, the AES92 is a pressurised water reactor, with a power capacity of 1049 MWe. The two units, which will provide a total installed electrical power of 2000 MWe". Also, to claim that the EU has not delivered a favorable opinion on the project is not correct, as the European commission released the following statement: "The Commission has decided today to give a favourable opinion to the initiative of Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania (NEK) of Bulgaria to build a new nuclear power plant at the site of Belene, according to the requirements of articles 41 to 44 of the Euratom Treaty."

The problem, however, is, that the AES 92 passive heat removal system is to be placed on top of the containment dome. And we are talking about a major watertank here, which, when filled, is at least several hundred, if not more than thousand tons of extra weight, that had not been considered in the original lay-out and structural analysis. Moreover, you would need to completely rebuild the outer mantle in order to create space for the water tank, inspection & maintenance shafts for the passive cooling system, etc. This - if structurally feasible at all - is going to be quite costly.

These or similar systems are used in many modern reactor types, as they have the obvious advantage of being able to work even in case of power failure. The claim about the need to rebuild the reactors doesn't make any sense, as no one is going to be rebuilding any reactors - new reactors are going to be installed.

As a matter of fact, several major European banks, among them Deutsche Bank, PNB Paribas and Unicredit, had looked into financing the project and carried out detailed estimates, but all declined participation in 2008/2009 when arriving at some 11 billion Euro total cost, against the originally projected 4 billion Euro.  With them, German utility giant RWE, that was originally assumed to take a 49% share in the project, withdrew its engagement. Already in 2006, Standard & Poor's had downrated Bulgaria's NEK from "developing" to "negative"  because or its 51% participation in Belene.

In the meantime, HSBC as advisor of the Bulgarian government has come out with a € 10.35 bn cost estimate "under the most optimistic scenario" (!), translating into some 7.5 €ct/kWh  power generation cost at Belene.

I prefer to see the actual report, instead of what Borisov claims it contains. Considering how frequently he says exactly the opposite of what he was saying earlier, while pretending to never have done so, he's not exactly a reliable source. The company that was going to install the nuclear reactors has said that Borisov knew very well that the reactors would cost 6.3 billion.
As for the withdrawal by RWE, there is considerable evidence that it happened not as a response to the proposed price, but as a result of uncertainty of whether the government was serious about the project. Also, some evidence about those banks estimating the cost at 11 billion would be nice. Regarding Standard & Poors downgrading NEK, that happened in 2010 and was more exactly the result of the problems of finding investors, not their participation itself. Also, considering that the company suggested paying for the Bulgarian government share in return for part of the profits generated by the company, the claims of Borisov become even more questionable.

Continued below

[GMantis]

wind power generation cost]For comparison - average [url=http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-3-economics-of-wind-power/chapter-1-cost-of-on-land-wind-power/the-cost-of-energy-generated-by-wind-power.html]wind power generation cost in non-coastal, medium wind speed sites in Europe ranges around 7 €ct/kWH. Small-scale hydro-power costs can be a fraction of this, if existing dams are used, and may even with new dams be as low as 5-6 €ct/kWh. EDF in 2011 estimated the average generation cost of natural gas turbines in France at 6.1 €ct/kWh (See here for this data, as well as various other power generation cost estimates for different power sources & countries).
So far on the project being proftibable![/url]

That would be relevant if the cost of the electricity produced is as high as it's claimed, which is not at all certain.

Reading further into your linked article, I stumbled about the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, it seems, we have one of the following two possibilities at hand:

• Construction of a VVER 1200 (AES 92) reactor that in principle complies with European safety standards, but bears considerable cost risks, is not profitable (or at least having higher power generation costs than natural gas, wind & water), and has its financing not yet secured. In addition, the EU commission has not yet formally approved VVER 1200, since Belene would be the first reactor of this type to be built inside the EU (so far on "proven technology")
• Or, a clandestine switch back to the old VVER 1000 technology, which would be much easier and cheaper to install and as such probably not meet profitability and financing problems, but of course carry all the failure and earthquake risks I mentioned in my previous post.

Whichever of the two is the case - this project is seriously flawed!

As I explained above no other reactor is being considered, other than an VVER 1000 AES-92.

[GMantis]

Also, to claim that the EU has not delivered a favorable opinion on the project is not correct, as the European commission released the following statement: "The Commission has decided today to give a favourable opinion to the initiative of Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania (NEK) of Bulgaria to build a new nuclear power plant at the site of Belene, according to the requirements of articles 41 to 44 of the Euratom Treaty."

Come on, please - this "favourable opinion" explicitly relates to the EURATOM treaty's notification requirement, and is in no way an endorsement of the project by the EU Commission. Its original meaning was to allow the Bulgarian side to apply for an EURATOM loan, whereby the document noted that "such request will be evaluated according to its own merits, notably in relation to its economic, financial and environmental characteristics."  In other words: "Go ahead for the moment, we wil start thinking about this seriously if you ask for any EU money".

But since Bulgaria has not requested EU funding for the project, that is not really that relevant, though it does confirm that the reactors are of a type accepted by the EU.

The claim about the need to rebuild the reactors doesn't make any sense, as no one is going to be rebuilding any reactors - new reactors are going to be installed.

You misunderstood me here. I never claimed that the reactor had to be rebuilt, It is the structural works, especially foundations and the outer mantle around and above the containment dome that require reassessment and  - most likely - fundamental re-design, if they are also to cater for a water tank above the containment dome .

I’m not certain whether any containment building constructed in the 80s was abandoned, but considerable preliminary work has been already carried out. Which is another reason why it makes little economic sense to abandon the project now.

In the meantime, HSBC as advisor of the Bulgarian government has come out with a € 10.35 bn cost estimate "under the most optimistic scenario" (!), translating into some 7.5 €ct/kWh  power generation cost at Belene.

I prefer to see the actual report, instead of what Borisov claims it contains. Considering how frequently he says exactly the opposite of what he was saying earlier, while pretending to never have done so, he's not exactly a reliable source. The company that was going to install the nuclear reactors has said that Borisov knew very well that the reactors would cost 6.3 billion.

Fair enough! While I could not find the full report, I came about this HBSC presentation of their approach and findings . Interestingly, they seem to have based their analysis on NEK cost estimates without further cross-checking. On top of 6.2 bn reactor costs, they have some 2 bn for preparatory works, some 2 bn financing costs, and some 170 mn of operation & maintenance costs, as well as taces, during the construction phase (Slide 8 ).   

I especially enjoyed slide 11, which shows that Belene power generation costs are higher than those from natural gas, onshore wind, and several biomass options (they did not even dare to put water power into the comparison). While not fully understanding the various scenarios they have applied (here, the full report would be helpful), a look at the last slide suggests that on the long run, the project would lead to Bulgarian electricity prices being some 2 €ct/kWh higher tham without it.

It’s not surprising that you couldn't find the full report – this presentation is the only part the government has seen fit to publish. Which considering how favorable it is to them, certainly makes one suspicious. Note that the construction costs for the plant are almost the same as those stated by Rossatom, while much of the price of the preparatory work has already been paid. As for the interest, doesn't that depend on how exactly the project is funded (this is something where having the full report would be definitely helpful, but conveniently, it isn't here)? And if the project could be constructed without a strategic investor (as Rossatom suggested), then it’s questionable how much of it would have to be paid at all.
And of course, most importantly: the government abandoned the project before this report came out. So whatever reasons they had to abandon it, the supposed 10 billion cost wasn't among them. Oh, and again how convenient that a report giving a good reason for that cancellation appears after the fact. I'm not, of course, suggesting anything stupid like a falsification, but consider that the report has been made on the request of the government, using mainly information provided by them and only favorable parts of it are being released. All of this means that one should be very careful in using this is as a source.
Regarding the prices, you are right that it would certainly be helpful to have (again), but as it is, one should treat it the same cautious way as the other parts of the report of which it is based on.

[GMantis]

But since Bulgaria has not requested EU funding for the project, that is not really that relevant, though it does confirm that the reactors are of a type accepted by the EU.

The EU's final verdict is still out. According to the EURATOM treaty:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 29 may be by-passed if the Bulgarian state stays out of the matter, and leaves everything to NEK as private entity. But, under such a scenario, what would be the point of doing a referendum at all?
Article 73 concerns the whole supply aggreement for nuclear fuels from Russia.

There are a number of other articles in the EURATOM treaty which relate to patents, licenses and utilitiy models acquired from third countries, that may be used by the Commission to re-enter technical evaluation of the Project.

Does article 29 apply to building nuclear plants? I'm not quite certain it does. Regarding article 73, there is the fact that Bulgaria already imports nuclear fuel for our other nuclear plant, so that shouldn't really be such a problem. Also, reactors of this type being built in the EU at the moment, for example in Slovakia, while two more are being planned in the Czech Republic.

Note that the construction costs for the plant are almost the same as those stated by Rossatom, while much of the price of the preparatory work has already been paid.

Of course, the costs of the reactor should be the same as stated by Rossatom, since HSBC states they used costs estimates provided by NEK without further checking.

As to the preparaory costs, some will have been paid, but a lot is still to come. My job in Pleven ten years ago was doing a similar study (greenfield investment project), and I was surprised how much extra cost comes on top of the building cost. There is things like like fencing, entrance control posts, area illumination (including AC power cabling to all the lamp poles), parking areas for employees and visitors, water supply and telecommunication connections, etc. Also, I would assume that the Rossatom price is only covering the reactor including cooling and control systems. On top of that, you need a number of auxiliary buildings and facilities, including worker decontamination, administration & visitor centre, storages and workshops of various kinds,  loading bays & equipment, etc. Transformers and high-voltage transmission out of the plant should also rather be in "preparatory cost" than in the reactor price. I could even imagine that the outer reactor mantle, and cooling water intake from the Danube, is budgeted under "preparatory costs" rather than for the reactor istself.
In any case, these costs seem to have as well been provided by NEK, who should tend to rather under- than overestimate them, in order to draw a favourable picture of the project.

It appears that 1.5 billion have already been invested. There is also the consideration that abruptly pulling out is likely to result in Bulgaria having to pay a settlement to the Russian company (up to 2 billion).
As to how objective NEK was, it's not at all certain that they were biased in favor of the nuclear plant. Consider how the report came out rather soon after the sudden decision to abandon Belene, when any excuse would have come in handy. Even if this information had been given out before the government's decision, there is the fact that Borisov's government never seriously attempted to find an investor between 2009 and 2012 (in fact the Russian company, Rossatom was better at finding non-Russian investors), which makes it even more doubtful how serious they were about continuing Belene even at this point.
Also, until recently the government pretended that it didn't know that the construction would cost 6.3 billion and now is making wildly different and much higher claims, so it's interesting to know what exactly information NEK was giving out.

As for the interest, doesn't that depend on how exactly the project is funded (this is something where having the full report would be definitely helpful, but conveniently, it isn't here)? And if the project could be constructed without a strategic investor (as Rossatom suggested), then it’s questionable how much of it would have to be paid at all.

My understanding is that HSBC's prime task was to come up with a financing strategy (loan amount, tranches, repayment periods and modalities) from the EU private sector, whch they present on slide 9. And, yes, I would have expected them to explicitly state the interest rate they base their estimates on, which they did not do.

As to doing the project without a strategic investor, you may (or may not) be aware of the fact that under EU competition legislation, no Bulgarian government money or state guarantee may be granted to the project itself (click on "reply" to see the full Commission statement).

So far, it seems to me that financing of the project is anything but secured.

Rossatom suggested paying the share of the Bulgarian government and then receiving it back through a portion of the profits earned by the plant. Incidentally, if budget resources can't be used to build the reactor, then the often repeated claims of the government in recent days that Bulgaria's budget can't cover the nuclear plant are again misleading.

Regarding the prices, you are right that it would certainly be helpful to have (again), but as it is, one should treat it the same cautious way as the other parts of the report of which it is based on.

O.k. Do you nevertheless aggree that currently available information raises substantial questions whether Belene is exonomically advantageous, compared to other options such as renewables or natural gas-fueled power plants?

I think that first, Belene would be economically profitable (as the HSBC report confirms) and secondly, that the benefits of building the plant, outweigh the costs of doing so, especially when considering the resources already invested into the project, the costs of settlement that will likely have to be paid to the Russian company for the cancellation and of the future costs of importing (instead of exporting) electricity in the not too far future. I think I mentioned that our other nuclear plant and many of our big coal fired plants are due to be closed in several years and yes, I do have serious doubts that any renewable energy plants that could be build in those years would be able to make up the shortfall. I haven't really thought about natural gas plants, but then again didn't you consider dependence on Russia a problem (and there is of course the whole things about the EU moving away from greenhouse gas producing plants)?

[GMantis]

Does article 29 apply to building nuclear plants? I'm not quite certain it does.

As various other articles in the treaty, article 29 may be interpreted one way or another. The point I was trying to make is that the 2007 EU statement should not be overrated -  the EURATOM treaty is giving the Commission enough entrance points to restart and revise their assessment, if they want to.

But have they given any indication that they would want to do so? After all, the project was at an advanced stage when it was canceled last year and at this point, nothing like that had happened.

Regarding article 73, there is the fact that Bulgaria already imports nuclear fuel for our other nuclear plant, so that shouldn't really be such a problem.

Let me draw your attention to the 2007 EU statement, which says, among others:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is obviously the Commission's prefered entrance point for re-assessment of the project, if they want to do so.

Certainly, but then again most of the uranium used in the EU is probably not of Russian origin, so it doesn't seem very likely that it would threaten diversity.

Also, reactors of this type being built in the EU at the moment, for example in Slovakia, while two more are being planned in the Czech Republic.

From your link, I understand that the Slovakian project is based on VVER-400 reacters, not VVER-1000 AES 92 as envisaged for Belene. To my knowledge, there is no VVER 1000 AES 92 project yet in the EU that might serve as precedence for EU Comission decisions.

These reactors seem to be an older type of VVER. The AES-92 is a more advanced, so it should have less problems. That's what was pointed out by the European Commission in 2007, after all.

It appears that 1.5 billion have already been invested. There is also the consideration that abruptly pulling out is likely to result in Bulgaria having to pay a settlement to the Russian company (up to 2 billion).

Looking at slide 5 in the HSBC presentation, the 1.5 billion already invested appear to include some 450 million "preparatory cost", while the remainder is reactor cost, and as such probably what Russia will try to get back as settlement from the Bulgarian side, should the project be cancelled. The 450 million are most likely "sunk". As to the 1 bn Russian claim - that may be negotiable, depending on contract details and on how this is being played (e.g. the EU Commission suddenly coming out with a negative opinion according to article 79, etc.)

It seems I've made a mistake about the figure of money "sunk" as the figure I gave was in Leva and not Euro. So it should be about 750 million Euro for preparatory costs and 1 billion for the Russsian company's claim. It's possible that these 750 million also includes previous expenses.
Regarding the Russian claim, while they may not be able to recover all of the claim,  what they do recover is also resources "sunk" without any benefits.  The government has claimed that it would attempt to have one of the planned reactors installed at Kozloduy, but that's a pipe dream, considering the substantial amount of work that would be needed and for which absolutely no planing exists as of now.  Also, why would the Commission bother dealing with this matter, now that no plant would be build?

As to how objective NEK was, it's not at all certain that they were biased in favor of the nuclear plant. Consider how the report came out rather soon after the sudden decision to abandon Belene, when any excuse would have come in handy. Even if this information had been given out before the government's decision, there is the fact that Borisov's government never seriously attempted to find an investor between 2009 and 2012 (in fact the Russian company, Rossatom was better at finding non-Russian investors), which makes it even more doubtful how serious they were about continuing Belene even at this point.
Also, until recently the government pretended that it didn't know that the construction would cost 6.3 billion and now is making wildly different and much higher claims, so it's interesting to know what exactly information NEK was giving out.

Thinking about it, it may have even be the other way round - NEK blowing up the costs to hide future 'kickbacks'. From German newspaper reports, it seems that a key reason for RWE's withdrawal in 2009 was serious concern about NEK lacking financial transparency, and "athmospheric disturbances" when they tried to get their reporting standards implemented for the Joint Venture. How was the Bulgarian reading in this respect?

Apparently while RWE was satisfied with the reactor site and the reactor type, they had concerns about the financial side of the project, mainly due to the financial crisis and the failure of NEK to reach two of the benchmarks in the negotiating process - a final contract with the Russian company and the financial structuring of the project. The later point is one of the reasons why NEK and the Borisov government have been blamed for this withdrawal, though it has also been claimed that the government sent mixed signals about its commitment to the project. Of course, the claims made in German newspapers also seem plausible.
And it certainly seems likely that NEK is blowing up costs. For example, they've claimed that it would cost two million Euro per kilometer to build transmission lines, which seems far too high. Of course, while the orginal purpose might have been to hide kickbacks, now it's a very convenient excuse for the halting of the project.

Continued below.

[GMantis]

I think that first, Belene would be economically profitable (as the HSBC report confirms) and secondly, that the benefits of building the plant, outweigh the costs of doing so, especially when considering the resources already invested into the project, the costs of settlement that will likely have to be paid to the Russian company for the cancellation.

The HSBSC presentation shows that the project is economically inferior in relation to various alternatives. As I said above, I think you overestimate the amounts that already have been invested, and the possible settlement cost in case of cancellation. However, as a matter of fact, as long as NEK is the only source for project costing, and the HSBC report has not been published, it is probably wise to say that  publicly available cost estimates bear too many uncertainties to allow for a final statement on the project's profitibality.

Of course, it's inferior to the alternatives under the conditions HSBC had been given  work with. But in any case, it's unlikely that except for natural gas, any of them could produce the same amount of electricity.

I haven't really thought about natural gas plants, but then again didn't you consider dependence on Russia a problem (and there is of course the whole things about the EU moving away from greenhouse gas producing plants)?

As concerns greenhouse gas emmissions, natural gas is widely accepted as 'bridge/ backup technology' until renewable energy potentials can be fully exploited. While each molecule of coal that is burnt produces one molecule of CO2, burning natural gas leaves you with one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of water (H2O). While coal plants emmit some 800-1100 g CO2/kWh, modern combined-cycle natural gas power plants range around 410-420 g CO2/kWh (>50% reduction). In addition, their production may be flexibly ajusted to cover demand peaks or supply dips (low winds / water), while coal and nuclear plants lack this flexibility.

Nuclear plants may not be easily switched off, but their power level can certainly been regulated. And of course burning coal and gas produces the same amount of CO2 per mole, but they're more efficient. I don't see what your point there was.

Dependence on Russia may of course be a problem. There are a number of gas pipelines from Azerbaijan and, eventually, Kazakhstan. Iran and Irak, proposed, such as Nabucco or the Azerbaijan-Romania interconnector, but they seem to be similar stories of large-scale projects with unsecure funding and uncertain profitability, as is Belene.

But, thinking about it, these projects may actually be a reason why the Bulgarian government changed its mind after Hillary Clinton's visit. The USA have for long been encouraging the construction of pipelines from the middle east that by-pass Russia. Most of these initiatives got stuck due to uncertainty about demand on the western shore of the Black Sea - a long term supply deal to Bulgaria might just be what is needed to get some of them going again.

Bulgaria has agreed to a Nabucco a long time ago, so Bulgaria's participation has never been a problem of why Nabucco is not moving forward. And since nothing has indicated that the other problems with this project are being solved, there is no reason why such a deal should make such an impression upon the Bulgarian government. Also, you don't know the Bulgarian government. Had there been such a suggested deal (and especially when it was needed to smooth the scandal of the abandonment of Belene), Borisov would have made certain that everyone not living under a rock would be made aware of it.

Also, take a closer look at the Nabucco map. Somewhere in north-central Bulgaria, close to the Danube, there shall be a major interchange, linking Nabucco with the South Stream pipeline from Russia, and splitting into three branches towards Sofia & Greece/ Italy, towards Romania & Hungary, and towards Serbia. Could that interchange be Belene? Then, after all, some of the "preparatory costs" already incurred might eventually not become "sunk" after all .....

Since the whole point of Nabucco is to deliver natural gas from Azerbajian and Central Asia while avoiding Russia, why would any interchange be allowed? And I doubt that you could use work undertaken to prepare for the building of a nuclear plant to make an interchange.

[GMantis]

[

Regarding article 73, there is the fact that Bulgaria already imports nuclear fuel for our other nuclear plant, so that shouldn't really be such a problem.

Let me draw your attention to the 2007 EU statement, which says, among others:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is obviously the Commission's prefered entrance point for re-assessment of the project, if they want to do so.

Certainly, but then again most of the uranium used in the EU is probably not of Russian origin, so it doesn't seem very likely that it would threaten diversity.

Exactly. So, why did the Commission put this sentence into their notification?

While this is a factor to the commission, it's not as strongly worded as some of the other suggestions, especially considering that at this point it was already known what kind of fuel would be used.
There is also of course the argument that with Kozloduy to close somewhere in the next 15 years, the quantity of Russian nuclear fuel would not change long term.

Apparently while RWE was satisfied with the reactor site and the reactor type, they had concerns about the financial side of the project, mainly due to the financial crisis and the failure of NEK to reach two of the benchmarks in the negotiating process - a final contract with the Russian company and the financial structuring of the project. The later point is one of the reasons why NEK and the Borisov government have been blamed for this withdrawal, though it has also been claimed that the government sent mixed signals about its commitment to the project. Of course, the claims made in German newspapers also seem plausible.
And it certainly seems likely that NEK is blowing up costs. For example, they've claimed that it would cost two million Euro per kilometer to build transmission lines, which seems far too high. Of course, while the orginal purpose might have been to hide kickbacks, now it's a very convenient excuse for the halting of the project.

When I worked in Georgia fifteen years ago, the rule of thumb was half a million Euro per km of transmission line. In the meantime, prices,  especially for steel, have gone up quite a lot.  It may also be that they need dual lines, 2.OOO MW is quite an output.
Anyway - leaving aside all discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear energy, where we both will probably not come to an agreement soon - such a project implementer alone would be sufficient reason for me to oppose the proiect.

It was to be dual lines, but apparently the claimed cost was for a single line.
And the problem is not really with NEK, but with the government that is controlling it. Though fortunately no government lasts forever. Unfortunately, by the time this government finally falls it may well be too late to restart the project (even if a new government wanted to do it, which is also doubtful).

Of course, it's inferior to the alternatives under the conditions HSBC had been given  work with. But in any case, it's unlikely that except for natural gas, any of them could produce the same amount of electricity.

Well, from 2010 to 2011, Bulgaria's installed windpower capacity increased from 177 to 500 MW. At that rate (330 MW per year), it would need six years to reach Belene's capacity. How long did you say would it take until Belene becomes operational?

I'm afraid that your figures are incorrect. According to the Bulgarian Wind Energy Association, the installed capacity by the end of 2011 was 516, up from 488 in 2010. The capacity did grow in 2012 to 684, but this is obviously not a regular growth rate. And of course as this growth continues, it's likely to increasingly hit diminishing returns.
Also, unlike with other type of electricity generation, there is of course a significant difference between installed capacity and actually produced energy. For 2010, for example with a capacity that could produce theoretically nearly 3.6 TWh (taking the average capacity at the end of 2009 and the end of 2010) while the actual electricity generated was nearly twelve times less than that. The source is here (in Bulgarian), showing 0.8% of the 41 TWh produced by Bulgaria in 2010 was from either wind or solar energy. So presuming a growth similar to the one shown last year, the actual electricity produced by wind should be comparable to that produced by one of the proposed Belene reactors by the time it is to be decommissioned in 2079. Of course, this is wildly optimistic, as it presumes no diminishing return, and if it was done, our mountains would probably be the noisiest part of the country.

And while you can regulate the power level of nuclear plants, they only react slowly. You cannot use nuclear plants to cover demand peaks (the stereotypical Euro final half-time break, when millions of households simultaneously switch on the toilet light, and afterwards open the fridge for the next beer). Gas power plants have that flexibility.

I don't think Bulgaria has had much problems with regulating electricity production, at least in recent years, even without gas plants.

Bulgaria has agreed to a Nabucco a long time ago, so Bulgaria's participation has never been a problem of why Nabucco is not moving forward. And since nothing has indicated that the other problems with this project are being solved, there is no reason why such a deal should make such an impression upon the Bulgarian government. Also, you don't know the Bulgarian government. Had there been such a suggested deal (and especially when it was needed to smooth the scandal of the abandonment of Belene), Borisov would have made certain that everyone not living under a rock would be made aware of it.

Too bad - that would have been a sensible and plausible explanation for the whole mess, and actually hinted at the existence of a long-term strategy for developing the Bulgarian energy sector...

The longest term our governments think of is until the next election. And sometimes not even that far.

Since the whole point of Nabucco is to deliver natural gas from Azerbajian and Central Asia while avoiding Russia, why would any interchange be allowed?

Because the point is not avoiding gas delivery from Russia, but making sure there are alternative sources so Russia cannot use its gas to exert political pressure. Same thing as Germany does - buy Russian natural gas, but also have pipelines constructed for British and Norwegian North Sea gas.

One would think that allowing Russia to sell gas through Nabucco undermines this purpose, since this gas would be competing with gas delivered from other sources (especially considering the problems with those other sources). In fact, even without an interchange, building one of those will making building the other unprofitable.

And I doubt that you could use work undertaken to prepare for the building of a nuclear plant to make an interchange.

Well, tree felling, planing, groundworks, road access etc. need to be done, no matter what kind of facility you are going to build on the site.

Which in the case of Belene will leave a sad memorial to the whole affair...

[GMantis]

With 20.3% turnout by six pm EET, the referendum has barely reached the lower threshold for parliamentary consideration, but of course far below the threshold for validity. The opponents of the referendum had the luck of terrible weather, which led to the closing of roads in many parts of the country and further reduced turnout.

[GMantis]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are there 6.9 million eligible voters when Bulgaria barely has 7 million people alltogether ?

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

Austria for example has 8.5 million people, but only 6.4 million eligible voters ...

No, of course there are not 6.9 million eligible voters. The real number is about 6.1 million (out of about 7.3 total). The problem is that people are not taken off the election rolls unless they have informed the Bulgarian authorities that they are not going to live in the country anymore. Of course almost no one does anything like that, so nearly all people who left since 1989 are still considered eligible to vote in Bulgaria. Even those Turks who left back in 1989 during the Big Excursion are on the rolls. Even worse, not all dead people are removed from the rolls, because if they are to be believed, Bulgaria would have more super-centenarians than the rest of the world taken together.

[GMantis]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How are there 6.9 million eligible voters when Bulgaria barely has 7 million people alltogether ?

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

Austria for example has 8.5 million people, but only 6.4 million eligible voters ...

No, of course there are not 6.9 million eligible voters. The real number is about 6.1 million (out of about 7.3 total). The problem is that people are not taken off the election rolls unless they have informed the Bulgarian authorities that they are not going to live in the country anymore. Of course almost no one does anything like that, so nearly all people who left since 1989 are still considered eligible to vote in Bulgaria. Even those Turks who left back in 1989 during the Big Excursion are on the rolls. Even worse, not all dead people are removed from the rolls, because if they are to be believed, Bulgaria would have more super-centenarians than the rest of the world taken together.

So, why did they hold a Census in 2011 ? They could have cleaned up the voter rolls as well with the new data ...

First, that would require cooperation between the National Statistics Institute and the Directorate of Citizen Registration (on which the electoral rolls are based) and that's not likely here Secondly, it's been argued that even if a Bulgarian has left the country, he could potentially return and vote here, so they can't deprive him of his rights.