Für die Artikel in bulgarischer Sprache – bitte auf die Fahne klicken
23.5.2023
Bulgaria-plans for 4 new nuclear reactors in a time of long political crisis
Although in Bulgaria we had 5 parliamentary elections in 2 years, the policies regarding the nuclear the energy did not change.
Politicians and Parliament made decisions to build 4 new nuclear reactors. 2 in Kozloduy and 2 in Belene. They choose Western reactors without giving up the Russian reactors in Belene.
On May 12.2023, the Constitutional Court rejected the request of deputies from the pro-Russian, pro-nuclear parties of the Socialists (BSP) and „Vazrazhdane“ to establish the unconstitutionality of a decision of the 48th Parliament to conduct negotiations with the US government regarding the conclusion of a construction agreement of new nuclear power at the Kozloduy NPP with the AP 1000 technology, adopted by the parliament on January 12, 2023. These parties are in favor of using Russian reactors, for this reason they wanted the Constitutional Court to stop the parliament’s decision on the AP 1000.
18.5.2023 The French energy company „Electrites de France“ (EDF) has presented, through Bulgarian Energy Minister Rosen Hristov, a detailed plan of how a pre-project study would be carried out on the possibilities of completing the frozen project for the construction of the Belene NPP.
An engineering contract is to be developed and signed for the construction of two units of 1,000 megawatts each, using the existing Russian VVER-1000 equipment at the Belene site. Their completion with French conventional technology is pending. This will be the subject of the contract.The caretaker government’s intention to sign an engineering contract with France’s EDF to study whether Belene NPP could be completed using Western technology was announced at the end of March. Previously, the Minister of Energy informed that such a study is planned to be conducted by the American „Westinghouse“ for two new reactors at the site of the Kozloduy NPP.
According to the analysis plan submitted by EDF, this will take between nine months and one year, the energy department explained.
It is likely that for both analyzes – from EDF and Westinghouse, the National Electric Company, owner of the assets for the Belene NPP, and the Kozloduy NPP New Powers company, specially created for new reactors in Kozloduy, will pay respectively
Of course, it should be kept in mind that these contracts refer only to pre-project engineering studies and not to construction.
National Energy coordinator for Bulgaria about Energy Transition for CEE Bankwatch
EU transparency registry number: 712396828677-20
Todor Draganov Todorov
Energy Transformation and Just Transition Coordinator
Environmentalists warn: the war in Ukraine gives us a sad lesson about the risks of nuclear power.
The environmental organization Za Zemiata has announced that it is following with concern the development of the war in Ukraine and the occupation of the area of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which crashed in 1986, as well as the largest NPP in Europe, Zaporozhye.
Environmentalists emphasize that the war, which is being fought only 200 km from the Bulgarian border, „gives us a sad lesson about the risks posed by nuclear power plants even after the end of their technological life.“
It is pointed out that the danger to people and the environment from military action in the areas of nuclear power plants and storage facilities for radioactive nuclear waste is huge. „The reactors in Zaporozhye are protected from direct hit by a projectile, but not the electric transformers, which are the weak point of this type of nuclear power plant,“ said Todor Todorov of Za Zemiata.
It is specified that the Chernobyl spent fuel storage facility contains more than 20,000 cartridges, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has already announced that it has no connection with the monitoring systems of the former Chernobyl NPP. current. The disconnection from the electricity grid has interrupted the possibility of monitoring the level of nuclear safety and if the power supply is not restored quickly, the cooling system may fail and the temperature rise may cause an explosion in the repository with very serious consequences for humans and the environment. perimeter and for years to come. The risk of radiation will be very real.
It is recalled that one of the largest nuclear accidents in the world occurred in a radioactive waste repository in 1957 in Mayak (then in the USSR), rated as an accident of 6th degree on the International Scale of Nuclear and Radiation Events INES). The cooling system then fails and more than 70 tonnes of liquid radioactive waste are blown up with a force similar to 80 tonnes of TNT and a 160 tonne concrete cover is thrown into the air. More than 200 people died from radiation sickness, and in just 12 hours the radioactive cloud reached 350 km from the crash site. Over 800 sq. Km. are contaminated with cesium 137 and strontium 90. In comparison, the accidents at the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear power plants are estimated at 7 degrees.
„The war in Ukraine gives us a sad lesson about the danger of believing in the myths of clean, safe and cheap nuclear power. We see that in today’s complex multipolar color, nuclear power plants are not a guarantee of security, as the famous Cold War thesis claims.“ , emphasize Todor Todorov from Za Zemiata.
Energy transition without Gazprom and without new nuclear capacity
Surprisingly for the former rulers, a country with a nuclear power plant is subjected to military aggression
The energy transition in Bulgaria should lead to swift and adequate structural reforms in the energy sector which in turn will lead to energy independence. Supported by the budget and funds from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan and the Just Transition Fund, climate change mitigation and clean environment policies should be accepted as important for the whole society.
Putin’s brutal aggression against Ukraine and the unprecedented sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia make it necessary to rethink the main directions of the country’s energy plans.
The EU is trying to minimize energy dependence on Russia and this is an irreversible process.
Our government has neither the time nor the excuse to delay energy reforms. Adopting more ambitious green transition targets is a guarantee to increase the country’s energy independence and to mitigate the consequences of new political and energy crises in the region.
The abandonment of the corrupt project for the construction of the The Belene Nuclear Power Plant , Kozloduy 7, as well as the contracts with Gazprom is mandatory.
We have been observing for decades the serving of private, oligarchic interests in the energy sector, to the detriment of the state, by various politicians and officials, as well as the prioritization of Russian energy interests at the expense of Bulgarian ones.
It is time to put an end to this corrupt pattern and finally turn our attention to sustainable solutions for increasing the country’s energy independence, preserving nature and improving people’s quality of life.
It is absurd that in 2022, the energy sector is still blocked by the same politicians who have been serving Russian energy interests for 30 years, condemning Bulgaria to energy mega-projects that limit the development of our economy.
Ministers from governments known for their huge corruption from the distant and more recent past – Rumen Ovcharov, Rumen Petkov, Rumen Gechev, the President Georgi Parvanov – continue to block the European path of the country’s development in the direction of increasing energy efficiency, decentralization of electricity production and easier access to renewable energy for households. It is worrying that these have been given publicity in the media, as part of the ruling coalition, to campaign on an almost daily basis for the renewal of the discredited Belene Nuclear Power Plant project, which has caused losses of more than BGN 3 billion to the budget, as well as for gas projects relying on Russian gas.
Temenuzhka Petkova and Boyko Borissov still do not find the roadmap for the construction of Turkish/Balkan Stream, a Gazprom project paid for with nearly 3 billion leva from the national budget and completely meaningless for the Bulgarian energy transition.
For decades, we have not heard from these politicians any proposals for protection of the environment, Bulgarian nature, or for improvement of air quality in the country. They never made the connection between improving people’s health and quality of life and a clean environment.
The Putin regime’s war against Ukraine has debunked another myth the above politicians have repeated without much thinking in order to ignore decentralization in the energy sector – that wars are not fought in countries with nuclear power plants and gas pipelines.
Russian troops occupied Chernobyl, there is a large radioactive waste storage facility there, and increased radiation was immediately reported, just from the movement of heavy military vehicles in the area. And what if military action leads to fighting in that area?
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe with 6 reactors of 1000 MW each, was also occupied. So far, the occupation of the NPP is only being used as a threat, but no one knows what might happen in case of unfavourable development of the war for Putin’s regime.
The fires that have broken out in the area of the plant are a very serious warning that a nuclear catastrophe with worse consequences than Chernobyl and Fukushima could be triggered there.
Several gas pipelines were also blown up, which was not even noted as a major event – so much for the issue of „protecting“ countries with nuclear power plants and gas pipelines from military action.
By the way, these examples should also be kept in mind by the EU in connection with the plan for categorising nuclear power and natural gas as ‚green‘ energy sources.
To these we may now add the EU sanctions on Russia and the impossibility of expecting Russian equipment for the already existing reactor, covered with plastic sheeting at the Belene site for years.
There is no need to mention the huge unresolved problem of the management and storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at the Kozloduy NPP, let alone adding another nuclear power plant.
For the same reasons as the sanctions, Kozloduy 7 is also impossible with a Russian reactor, and the US small modular reactors recently promoted by our politicians have no license anywhere in the world and the most optimistic date for building nuclear capacity with them is around 2035.
In connection with the Russian aggression over Ukraine, Finland is assessing the security risks of the planned Hanhikivi 1 nuclear reactor which is to be built by the Russian state-owned company Rosatom.
The likelihood of the Finnish Government cancelling this project is high.
As a consequence of the sanctions on Russian banks, the fate of Hungary’s Paks 2 nuclear power plant, which is planned with a EUR 10 billion loan from Russia, is also unclear.
The time of gas as a transitional fuel passed ten years ago. Just like Borissov’s promises our country to become a gas hub in the Balkans.
Europe’s vulnerability to fossil fuels is not a problem of today. Back in early 2009 Putin demonstratively stopped gas supplies through Ukraine, which affected several EU countries, including Bulgaria. But unfortunately, no measures have been taken to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russian fossil gas.
The high energy prices in Europe since last autumn are also a consequence of the excessive share of gas and coal in the energy mix of European countries.
This gas and coal price shock has once again shown us that, by relying on fossil fuels, we are putting the economy not only in a position of uncertainty and dependence on unpredictable markets, but also in political and economic interests over which we have no control.
Now the Bulgarian government has the opportunity, together with EU partners, to take concrete measures for increasing the country’s energy independence.
At the moment, it is particularly important to put an end to the campaign of some politicians and media in Bulgaria against the Green Deal, presented as „pressure from Brussels“ against Bulgarian national interests and economic development.
Because of the sanctions against Russia following the war in Ukraine, the Swiss-registered company Nord Stream 2 has filed for bankruptcy and dismissed all its employees.
The trend is for the EU to minimize its dependence on Russian gas.
The changed environment in Europe puts the Bulgarian government to the test of implementing real reforms towards a fair energy transition even faster. We want to identify the steps that are so necessary in this process:
Adoption of energy policies towards a green transition and a green economy.
Abandonment of energy mega projects – NPP Belene, Kozloduy 7, combined-cycle power plants, which are blocking the development of the energy sector.
Development of an energy sector based on modern renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency and decentralization of electricity production.
Investing in renewable energy and energy storage technologies will be a key focus in the coming years. Moreover, there will be additional funds from the Recovery Plan, the Modernisation Fund, the Just Transition Fund and territorial plans.
Planned and gradual decommissioning (phase out) of coal plants, starting with those that have not met environmental standards for years. Using funds from the Just Transition Fund to make the energy transition fair for workers in the sector.
Establishing a detailed professional reorientation plan for employees affected by the energy transition, including an analysis of the jobs currently held, education level and age group, based on which a clear strategy for employee opportunities after the phase out of the coal facilities to be developed. This would significantly mitigate the negative attitudes of much of society in the region on the subject of energy transition.
We have other specific proposals and recommendations that we think the government should undertake and we are ready to provide expert assistance to the Ministry of Energy. We hope it will come out of its shell and lobbying interests, and open up to the capacity of NGO experts, energy experts and scientists.
By Todor Todorov, Za Zemiata and CEE Bankwatch National Energy coordinator for Bulgaria about Energy Transition
The small modular reactors and the big ambitions
Analysis by Dr Kaschiev
In October last year, the prime minister surprisingly announced that the government was considering building small modular reactors (MMRs). On February 17 this year, it was reported that Kozloduy NPP – New Capacities and the American NuScale Power have signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The aim is to explore the possibility of building the MMPs developed by NuScale Power. Kozloduy NPP – NM claims that there are no binding clauses in the memorandum, but since it is not publicly available in the media, various comments have appeared.
NuScale Power much more clearly states the company will support Kozloduy NPP – NM in conducting research, including feasibility studies, financial evaluation of the project, various engineering evaluations, planning and licensing, with the potential goal of building a new nuclear power plant with NuScale Power MMP.
Both countries claim the technology is safe, reliable, maneuverable and ideal for Bulgaria. Some supporters of MMR suggest that by 2030 country would have 5-6 thousand MW of such capacity built. Others loudly announced that nuclear modules could be placed even in the center of Sofia?!?
This material provides information on MMP projects and especially those on NuScale Power, and provides an opportunity to assess the validity of these claims.
Large and small reactors
In the initial phase of development of nuclear energy, all reactors had low power. The idea of scaling up was quickly conceived, as it led to significant financial benefits. On the other hand, the huge electricity systems of the main countries taking part in the development, make it possible to include high-power plants. This led to the creation of reactors with a capacity of up to 1650 MW electricity (EPR). There are now at least 10 modern projects of large light reactors in the world, with several modifications, most of which are licensed and operational.
Reactors with an electrical capacity of more than 700 MW are large and those of less than 300 MW are small. From 300 to 700 MW are of average capacity, there is a class of microreactors (less than 10 MW). Most operating reactors in the world are of medium and high power. Those with low power are mainly created as prototypes of larger ones. Microreactors are intended mainly for space missions, in the past they were used by the USSR for satellites. There are ideas to potentially sue microreactors to power military bases, islands, etc.
The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents have tightened regulatory norms and requirements and have even led to the addition of new safety systems. On the other hand, the huge size has led to problems in design, licensing and especially in construction. As a result, construction time and start-up costs increased sharply, and real prices turned out to be significantly higher than initially estimated. For example, the construction of Westinghouse’s two AP-1000 reactors in the United States will take more than 8 years instead of 5 years, and the costs have already exceeded 11,000 USD / kW. The situation is similar and even worse with Areva’s 5 EPR reactors under construction. in France. Sequentially, this made potential investors highly cautious.
One of the nuclear industry’s ideas to restart was to circle back to designing small reactors. Thus, the reactor island can be simplified, making it more reliable, safer, easier and faster to build and ultimately cheaper and more attractive. However, the small size also leads to a number of negative consequences.
So far, only the Russian floating nuclear power plant is in operation, with two water reactors of 35 MW each. They had long been developed for icebreakers and cannot be considered a new project. Their construction lasted more than 12 years, the costs increased almost 5 times and exceeded 10,500 USD / kW of electricity. Mostly for these reasons, there are no other candidates to invest in this technology. Russia is developing 4 more projects of light water reactors for floating nuclear power plants.
Most companies have focused on developing small modular reactors. In them, as a rule, the core and all components of the primary circuit are integrated in one module. It is prepared in factory conditions and transported for installation on site. Most NPP projects have several modules. It is believed that the construction time will be less, which will reduce interest costs. It is assumed that the construction of the individual modules can be done one by one, depending on the needs and will require less initial costs. In continuous production, the cost of one module will decrease enough. However, many economists believe that even with all the favorable factors, electricity from small reactors will be more expensive than large ones.
The first large-scale project to develop the small modularreactorswas launched in the 1990s in South Africa with the participation of an international team. This is a high-temperature PBMR type reactor based on the German HTR which was shut down after Chernobyl.
The enrichment is twice as high as in the light reactors, the fuel is uranium particles, coated with several shells and pressed into graphite spheres. The retarder is graphite, the heat carrier – helium, which is heated to over 700 degrees and directly feeds a gas turbine. The plans foresaw 24 modules in operationby 2030. In order to achieve good economic results, the thermal capacity has been increased from 200 to 400 MW, which, however, causes a number of technical and licensing problems. At the same time, the value of the project is growing sharply, investors and clients never emerged, and after spending 1.3 billion USD, in 2010 the project was frozen.
In 2005, 50 small reactor projects were under development and now 72 are being developed in 18 countries. 25 of them are with light and heavy water, 11 are fast neutrons with different heat carrier, 11 are high-temperature, 10 -of molten salts, etc. There are 18 projects under development in the United States, 17 in Russia, 9 in China, 8 in Japan and 7 in Canada. Even Denmark, Luxembourg and Saudi Arabia have announced that they are developing such projects.
It is not clear how many of these 72 projects are being worked on and how many will reach license and construction of a prototype stage. Only 10 are in the 4th and 5th design phases and three more designs of NPPs with small reactors are under construction or close to it:
HTR-PM, China – two modules with high temperature reactors power a steam turbine with a capacity of 210 MW of electricity. Each module has a graphite retardant and helium coolant and a thermal capacity of 250 MW. It is expected to enter operation in 2021-2022.
CAREM -25, Argentina – NPP with one integrated, light-water reactor, electric power about 30 MW.
It is expected to start construction at the end of this year ACP 100, China – integrated, single, light reactor, electric power about 30 MW.
NuScale Power
It was founded in 2007 by scientists from the University of Oregon, developing technologies for passive cooling of reactors. Since 2011, the main shareholder in it is the engineering and construction corporation Fluor. A fundamentally new project for a light water reactor with natural circulation of the heat carrier (without pumps) in the primary circuit is being developed. The driving forces are the differences in the density of the heat carrier in the core and in the steam generator, and their height. This greatly simplifies the primary circuit but imposes thermal power limitations.
The lack of pumps and pipelines in the primary circuit allows all components (core, steam generator and pressure compensator) to be integrated into one metal housing. It is mounted in an outer metal housing, which serves as a protective shell (container) and can withstand much higher internal pressure than traditional ones. A small vacuum will be maintained in the container during operation, which will limit heat loss and corrosion of the metal. Cables, pipelines of the systems for water exchange and purification of the primary circuit, steam pipelines and pipelines for return of condensate come out of it. A new type of steam generator with spiral heat exchange tubes has been developed for the project. There is not much information about its reliability, service life, whether it can be repaired, replaced, etc. Critics of the project have expressed concern that it could be damaged by vibrations in emergency processes.
As of 2010, a module with 45 MW of electric power has been developed in principle. However, low power leads to expensive output and, as with the PBMR project, power increases begin. As of 2015, a module with thermal / electric power of 160/50 MW has been developed, which in 2020 has received approval from the regulator.
Economic results were still unsatisfactory and by 2019 a module was being developed with thermal power of 200 MW and electric power of 60 MW.
Months ago, NuScale Power announced that it was developing an even more powerful module with 250 MW of heat and 77 MW of electricity. It will be presented for licensing in 2022. The company has developments for NPPs with 4 and 6 modules, but the option with 12 modules is considered optimal. The plan is for the first NPP to have 12 modules of 77 MW and a total gross capacity of 924 MW. As you can see, for efficient operation, a nuclear power plant with MMR must have many modules and huge capacity.
NuScale Power has already invested more than $ 900 million in the development of the MMP, of which $ 317 million is from the government. Through the MDGs, the United States plans to regain its leadership in nuclear energy and to get billions of orders from around the world.
What is NuScale Power MMP
With a module of 77 MW, the hull has an inner diameter of 2.74 m and its height has been increased to 19.8 m. The containment has an outer diameter of 4.57 m and a height of 23.16 m.
The core will contain 37 standard assemblies of 17 x 17 fuel cells with a ladder height of fuel tablets of about 2 m, which will be prepared by AREVA – France. For comparison – in the core of the AR-1000 there are 157 fuel assemblies, which are twice as high. In large reactors, neutron leakage is negligible and nuclear fuel enrichment may be less. The distribution of neutron flux and energy release in the fuel in them is close to optimal and high combustion is achieved. The situation is reversed with small core size – significant neutron leakage and suboptimal distribution of energy release. Therefore, significantly less energy can be extracted per unit mass of fuel than in large reactors. This means that per unit of energy produced, such a module will generate more fuel. These significant shortcomings are common to all small reactors.
In 16 of the fuel assemblies there will be mobile neutron absorbers, each with its own electromagnetic motor mechanism. A soluble absorber (boron) in the coolant will also be used. Uranium-235 enrichment should be higher than for large reactors but will be below 4.95% (the limit for US civil reactors).
The difference in the water temperatures at the inlet / outlet of the core at 60 MW module is 56 degrees (265 – 320 о), while at large reactors it is below 35 degrees. There is no information on how much it will be with the most powerful module. The low inlet temperature in the core determines low parameters of the steam in the secondary circuit. Combined with higher heat losses, only 31% of the heat will be converted to electricity (77 MW module). Such values (and lower) are typical for small reactors, while for large water reactors they are 34-36%. This also means that per unit of electricity produced, a small reactor requires a larger amount of final heat sink than a large reactor.
From a safety point of view, NuScale’s MMP has many advantages over large reactors, which cannot be discussed in detail here. Some examples: Simplifying a project eliminates a whole class of baseline events for accidents; Emergency cooling systems are passive, i.e. no pumps, energy or operator intervention are required. They consist of only two pairs of valves and heat exchangers mounted on the outside of the metal container. In them, the steam-water mixture from the steam generators is cooled by the water in the pool and returned. This can last more than 30 days, and when and if the water in the pool evaporates, cooling with air will suffice.
Nuclear power plant with NuScale Power modules
The plant project is likely to be presented to the regulator in 2023. Licensing is a major challenge, as current standards and rules have been developed for large reactors.
The module of 77 MW of electricity weighs about 700 tons and will be delivered to three segments by road, railway line, or by water from the factory. A common reactor building is envisaged, in which each module will be below ground level, in a huge pool, each of which will be in a separate section. The pool will be over 20 m deep and will contain about 50 thousand tons of water. The reactor building will be able to withstand the impact of an aircraft (no details, probably small). Each module will power a separate steam turbine, with the 12 turbines in two buildings on either side of the reactor. All modules will use several common systems and will be controlled by a common control room with 6 operators, a simulator of which has already been created.
The individual modules will be shut down for 10 days every 24 months for recharging and revision while the others run. 1/3 of the fuel will be replaced with fresh. After stopping a module, all pipelines, steam pipelines, supporting structures, cables, etc. will be disconnected and the whole will be transferred to the audit compartment. There, the upper part of the container and the inner hull will be dismantled with special tools. Such technology has not been implemented so far and its reliability and safety have yet to be proven. The spent fuel is placed in a special compartment of the pool.
The plant will also have a special building, installations for preparation, storage, and purification of boron solutions, for processing and storage of radioactive waste, for dry storage of spent fuel, laboratories, warehouses, administrative building, distribution device, cooling towers, etc. The protected area (behind the fence) will be about 140 acres, and the total much more.
If a NPP with 12 modules operates mainly in base mode, it will maintain a constant net capacity of 880 MW. During recharging of one module – about 816 MW and the need for replacement power will be small, unlike large reactors.
In the natural circulation of the coolant, changes in the heat output of the reactor are not desirable and must be made very slowly. Power increase from 20% to 100% will take more than an hour and a half. However, NuScale modules can vary their electrical power in a wide range by directing part of the steam flow directly to the capacitors. The electric power can be reduced from 100% to 20% in 10 minutes and raised back in 27 minutes (60 MW module), and the reactor will operate at rated power. NuScale Power is exploring the possibilities of using its modules to produce hydrogen, desalinated water, heating, and other purposes, combined with variable electric power mode.
Problems with the licensing of NPPs with many modules include risk analysis of the use of common systems, common staff for all modules, control from one control room, simultaneous operation of some and recharging of other modules, diagnostics, and control of metal in small free volumes, the reliability of steam generators, recharging technology and much more.
Who, where and when will build the first NPP with NuScale modules
So far only Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). It is a structure of the Utah state administration that unites small energy companies on a voluntary basis, including from neighboring states. It deals with the planning, financing, construction, maintenance and operation of energy projects of general interest, as well as with the transmission and distribution of electricity. Delivers to customers about 5.5 billion kWh – about 1/7 of Bulgaria’s consumption. In 2015, a project for the construction of a nuclear power plant with MMS of NuScale Power was launched. It aims for the new plant to replace obsolete coal-fired power plants and to be able to work with wind and solar parks.
The government provided a site for the first nuclear power plant with MMR and paid the cost of licensing it (about $ 63 million). It is in the National Laboratory in Idaho (INL) – one of the nuclear complexes in the United States. It is a rocky desert in the neighboring state of Idaho, which has a territory of 217 thousand km² and a population of 1.717 million people. INL has an area of 2310 km², a staff of about 4 thousand people and a budget of 1 billion dollars. At the end of 1951, for the first time in the world, electricity was received from a nuclear reactor (IBR-1), now a museum. INL has designed and built 52 nuclear reactors for various purposes, most of which have been shut down. It is now the leading center for the development of nuclear energy in the United States. INL plans to hire the first MMP in 15 years and use it as a prototype for research.
The plan envisages the construction of a NPP with 12 modules to take place within 4 years after the first concrete is poured. There will be about 1,600 jobs and 1,350 secondary jobs in construction. The plant’s staff is expected to be a total of 360 people (10 times less than at Kozloduy NPP now). Against the background of an average of 0.6 people / MW of electricity at the US nuclear power plant, this is too small and leads to accusations of irresponsibility by critics of the project. About 300 additional jobs will be indirectly created in the district.
The deadlines for commissioning have been repeatedly postponed. Initially, 2019 was mentioned, then 2023.… Until recently, the first 60 MW module was planned to be operational in 2026, and the rest in 2027. The deadlines are already 2029 and 2030, which is probably due to the need to license the 77 MW modules. In order for the next modules to be loaded and installed one after the other, the pool will probably need to be emptied and the first module stopped. This shows that the idea of adding modules for those already working is not applicable. Ultimately, the initial investment for all modules will similarly be invested in large reactors and thus no significant savings in interest costs can be achieved.
BWX Technologies, Inc. was chosen to make the modules — a company that has produced over 400 reactors for military purposes and over 300 steam generators for nuclear power plants.
Construction of other NPPs with NuScale Power MMR without federal / state subsidies is very problematic and so far there are no investors and clients for them.
Todor Todorov- Environmental Association Za Zemiata 29.01-2021
Nuclear energy in Bulgaria – chaos, corruption and incompetence
Every decision of the government and the parliament regarding the energy sector, every media appearance of the Prime Minister, Boyko Borissov, and the Minister of Energy, Temenuzhka Petkova, on the topic of energy are an intellectual insult to society.
After Minister Petkova’s incessant excuses resembling anecdotes that the Covid crisis temporarily stops the interest of investors in the Belene NPP, we thought we would not hear bigger nonsense.
However, on January 20, 2021, through a press release, the government gave out information regarding Minister of Energy’s report on the actions taken and the results of the study looking into the possibilities for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Kozloduy NPP, and the use of Belene NPP equipment.
With this report, the government once again demonstrates its incompetence, lack of vision for the development of the energy sector and effort to provide the nuclear lobby with an opportunity to drain the state budget for „consulting“ reports, analysis, evaluations, studies, equipment changes for decades.
Without mentioning the termination of the Belene NPP project at all, the report goes directly to a proposal for the construction of Unit VII at Kozloduy NPP with the equipment developed for the Belene NPP.
Adding to the absurdity, there is also the possibility of installing small modular reactors on the same site… which have not yet been approved by Euratom. Prime Minister Borissov, commenting on this report on the construction of Unit VII at Kozloduy NPP, akin to his manner, cheerfully promising Unit VIII.
And this is happening 2 months before the parliamentary elections?! I wonder what reality this government lives in.
It is as if they rely on us to forget how only a few months ago Minister Petkova convinced the public that the Belene NPP would be built and a „consortium“ of Russian Rosatom, French Framatom and American General Electric to participate in the procedure for selecting a strategic investor for Belene NPP has been created.
And President Radev called the Belene NPP project „inevitable.“
In its response, the Ministry of Energy clearly states that the decision of the Parliament of June 17, 2018 to resume the Belene NPP project will be implemented repeating the mantra regarding strategic investor. There is not a single word about Unit VII of Kozloduy NPP.
That is, on 30.12.2020 ME officially confirmed that it continues to look for an investor for Belene NPP, while on 20.1.2021, we already have a report from the Minister of Energy with a proposal to use the equipment from the Belene NPP site for the construction of Unit VII of Kozloduy NPP.
Apart from being an illustration of the brazen lies and intellectual inability of the government to deal with this case, the approach of transferring equipment from Belene NPP to Kozloduy NPP shows they are not really very skillful in trying to cover up the huge thefts and abuses of corruption. BGN 3.5 billion was stolen from the state budget through an organized criminal group (OCG) by politicians, consultants and serving foreign energy interests parties.
The sense of impunity that this government demonstrates with its inadequate decisions in the energy sector can be compared to the arrogance of Rumen Ovcharov (former Minister of Economy and Energy 2005-2007)
The prosecutor’s office are investigating the Belene NPP case from 2009, perhaps after the elections (4.4.2021) the institutions will be more willing to seek responsibility from those responsible for this 30-year theft of huge funds from taxpayers.
If that happens, the current prime minister and minister Petkova should have a place in the investigation, of course next to her OCG comrades from several previous governments and one president, exciting Russian Grand Slam.
Critical analysis of the rule of law in the licensing process of Belene Nuclear Power Plant
05 November 2020. By Prof. Georgi Kaschiev
For years, Bulgarian governments have been supporting the corruption-laden project forBelene Nuclear Power Plant (Belene NPP); even now, when over BGN 3 billion of state budget have been spent, no one has been held accountable for this grand theft. Of course, corruption schemes are impossible without the government trampling on the laws.
Read Professor Kaschiev’s Critical analysis of the rule of law in the licensing process of Belene NPP here or download in .pdf here.
Controversial state decisions regarding Belene NPP
On March 28, 2012 the Belene NPP project was discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers (CoM). Prime Minister Borisov explained to the ministers in detail the seismic risks of the site and the danger of a catastrophe “after which Bulgaria simply won’t be there anymore“. Decision № 250 of the Council of Ministers was adopted, terminating the construction of Belene NPP.
On March 29, 2012, the Bulgarian National Assembly (NA), sharing the same concern over the seismic risk of the project, supported the move by the Council of Ministers to terminate the construction of Belene NPP.
On January 27, 2013, a nation-wide referendum was held, asking the question ‘Should nuclear energy be developed in the Republic of Bulgaria by means of the construction of a new nuclear power plant?’. Due to the insufficient voter turnout, the proposal was submitted for decision to the National Assembly. The the National Assembly’s Decision of 27.02.2013 insists on the „definitive termination“ of the project for construction of a new nuclear power plant on the Belene site.
With no public discussions and no reasons provided, forgetting about the seismic risks, the National Assembly, with a Decision of 05.06.2018, recommends to the Council of Ministers to take action to revoke the decision for terminating the Belene NPP project. The declared goal is to be able to conduct negotiations with potential investors and equipment manufacturers under certain conditions. The decision requires that the liabilities and assets of the National Electric Company (NEK) be transferred to a separate company – a task that not yet been fulfilled. The previous decisions of the National Assembly from 2012 and from 2013 have not been revoked.
By Decision № 447 of 29 June 2018, the Council of Ministers annulled the decision to annul the decisions (decision № 250 of the Council of Ministers of 2012 to annul Decision № 259 and Decision № 260 of the Council of Ministers of 2005). That decision represents an unstable administrative act, as it was appealed at the Supreme Administrative Court. The next hearing was held on October 12, 2020 and the case was proceeded on the merits.
As of the date of termination of the Belene NPP project, the review of the technical project submitted in April 2008 had not been completed and, accordingly, no order has been issued by the NRA Chairman for its approval.
The same opinion was expressed at NRA’s annual press conference in 2020. It is reported that NEK has not yet provided the necessary information for Belene NPP in order to continue the licensing process.
The annual reports of the NRA for 2018 and 2019 (pp 26 – 27) on Belene NPP state that “The opinion of the Agency is that the acts issued in connection with the implementation of the licensing process and entered into force retain their legal action – site selection permit, site selection order and design permit”. The 2019 report states that in early April 2019 NEK requested clarifications from the NRA regarding the continuation of the licensing process for Belene NPP and the procedure for approval of the technical design. The NRA has informed NEK that it will continue the work on reviewing the technical design of Belene NPP and has presented its requirements for further actions by NEK (http://www.bnra.bg/bg/documents/annrep/doklad-2019-21-07-2020.pdf).
The news published on the NRA website shows that the NRA has awarded via public procurement tenders for over BGN 200 000 “in connection with the renewal of the procedure for reviewing the documents for issuing an order for approval of the prepared technical design of Belene NPP”. For example, in August 2019, a call for tenders was announced for an assessment of the compliance of the performed safety analysis of Belene NPP with the current safety requirements for nuclear power plants. The procedure is connected to the renewal of the procedure for issuing an order for approval of the technical design of Belene NPP.
These and other facts show that, according to NRA, NEK is the holder of permits for design of Belene NPP and the activity of analysis of the technical design of the plant may continue.
Factual situation
According to Art. 14 of the Law on Safety in the Use of Nuclear Energy (ASUNE), any activity in the nuclear sphere can be performed only if a permit has been issued by the regulator (NRA). It is therefore crucial to clarify whether the design permits issued for the Belene NPP are valid, given that each permit has a limited validity period. No statements were found by the NRA on the terms and validity of the design permits for the Belene NPP.
However, a check in the public registry (Permits for nuclear facilities) of the NRA shows the following:
– The design permits issued in 2006 for the two blocks of Belene are expired / terminated / revoked in 2015 and 2016;
– Between 2006 and to date the registers do not include valid permits issued by the NRA to NEK under the Belene NPP project.
The absence of valid permits for design of Belene NPP means that all activities of NEK and NRA since June 2018 to move the technical design of Belene NPP have been carried out in violation of ASUNE and the regulations for its implementation and are therefore ILLEGAL. They are also in violation of the requirements of Directive 2014/87 / Euratom, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and good international practice.
These striking violations of the permit regime will certainly cause an international scandal.
These facts, as well as other important information about the project, have been concealed from the public by using false allegations. They also remain hidden from any potential investors, which creates the risk of litigation on their part.
On 08.07.2020 the Prosecutor’s office was alerted by Professor Georgi Kaschiev and lawyer Albena Belyanova about these illegal actions of the NRA and NEK. The same alert was also sent to the State Agency for National Security, the Commission for Combating Corruption and Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property and to the General Directorate „Energy“ of the European Commission. So far, a response was received from the European Commission only.
A possible explanation for this illegal behavior of the state institutions is the intention of the NRA to issue an order for approval of the technical design. Such an approval cannot be appealed by citizens. It is therefore crucial to inform the EC, the European Parliament and NGO partners in order to stop this process.
05 November 2020
Bulgarian government between anti-corruption protests and the lies about the Belene NPP
Todor Todorov- Environmental Association Za Zemiata Sept 24th 2020
Protests against corruption in the government and the chief prosecutor have been going on for more than 70 days. An important part of corruption is in the energy sector. Not many people took part in the protests, but they lasted long enough for us to comment on this topic in the media.
More and more people have learned about the uncontrolled draining of the state budget for the Belene NPP megalomaniac project.
The government is trying to isolate NGOs from participating in important national strategies, programs and plans. Such an approach of non-transparency and ignoring the public interest for many years has led to an increase in corruption and lagging behind Bulgaria in the EU in terms of energy efficiency and use of renewable energy technologies.
The protest demands the resignation of the government, but the next regular parliamentary elections are in March 2021. And the government wants to rule this term until the end.
Тhe outgoing government continues with lies about the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. The Minister of Energy, Ms. Petkova, told in national media that Bulgaria needs a new nuclear power plant without mentioning the Belene NPP.
In National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan for the period 2030 states that a new nuclear power plant is planned to be built after 2030.
The government’s draft of a new energy strategy for the period 2030/2050 envisions a new nuclear power plant in 2035, again without mentioning the Belene NPP.
This is new, for 20 years Bulgarian governments have always said that Belene NPP will be built. The Russian reactors were ordered specifically for the Belene NPP site.
Probably the nuclear lobby is preparing the public for the construction of Unit 7 at Kozloduy NPP. With the expected failure of the Belene NPP project.For Kozloduy NPP, we must recall that for several years it has not fulfilled its legal obligation to annually transport at least 50 tons of heavy radioactive metals in spent nuclear fuel for storage and processing in Russia.
The government may understand that no strategic investor will appear for the construction of the Belene NPP due to the huge problems facing the implementation of this project. No one will pay for the construction of the plant without state aid. However, this does not lead them to the logical conclusion of a complete abandonment of the Belene NPP project, but to ideas on how to transfer the costs to the taxpayers through the construction of Kozloduy 7.
For many years, Bulgarian politicians have been proving their readiness to make decisions for the construction of a nuclear power plant without prior analysis and evaluation, ie. only for political reasons, with extreme irresponsibility for people’s lives and health. In the service of foreign interests.But civil society is now much more informed and will not allow the lie about „cheap and safe nuclear energy“ to continue
Todor Todorov- Environmental Association Za Zemiata
Open letter to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria
The government must quickly and permanently end the compromised Belene NPP project.
Mr. Borissov, we insist on your quick and decisive intervention to stop the lies and misconceptions spread by representatives of the government and the NRA through the media in the public regarding the prospects for the Belene NPP project, as well as to stop draining the state budget.
Belene NPP and the lying politicians
The world’s first illegal nuclear power plant?
The vigorous reporting of lies is a practice of the Minister of Energy, whether it concerns meetings with trade unions, the coal industry or nuclear energy. Regarding to Belene NPP, the government seems to be living in a parallel reality. One week ago, Minister Petkova announced in Parliament the union of the „three world leaders in nuclear energy“ to participate in the project (Russia’s Rosatom, France’s Framatome and America’s General Electric).
She called the merger a legally non-binding memorandum between these companies, with no commitment to a strategic investor, as it is actually sought under the procedure announced by the government.
The European Commission (EC) has sent a response letter to lawyer Albena Belyanova on behalf of Executive Vice President Westeger, as well as to Commissioners Simson, Breton and Sinkevicius on the Belene NPP status case. The letter very clearly states the facts and the current state of this project according to EU laws and requirements.
As usual, representatives of the Ministry of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) hastened to reverse and downplay the facts, stating that it is not necessary to issue a new license to the plant in order to mislead the public, apparently not having read the letter.
Maybe the energy ministry hopes to build the EU’s first illegal nuclear power plant?
In fact, the EC provides very important information in its response and due to the great importance of the facts for the future of the project, we need to clarify the main points in the letter, quoting them correctly to acquaint society, government and NRA with the real situation. The opinion of the EC presupposes concrete actions by the Bulgarian government.
The position of the EC briefly as follows:
1. Despite the renewal of the project in June 2018, according to the EC, no new actions have been taken so far in connection with the regulatory process, i.e. the project is at the stage of issuing an order for approval of the technical project by the NRA Chairman;
2. In 2019, the Commission reasonably responded to Minister Petkova, expressing the opinion that the planned new investment project should be the subject of an entirely new communication under Article 41 of the Euratom Treaty, and not a supplement to the 2007 Communication, i.e. the statements of the Minister of Energy that a new notification of the EC is not necessary but a sufficient addition to the notification do not correspond to the opinion expressed by the EC;
Minister Petkova ignored this response of the EC instead of triggering the necessary procedures. It is strange that she is still in office.
3. The Commission services are currently in the process of assessing the conformity of the independence of the competent regulatory body, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, and in the event of a breach of the Nuclear Safety Directive (Article 5 (2) and (3)), the EC has the right to initiate proceedings to establish a violation against Bulgaria;
4. The Belene NPP project has not been subject to peer review by the EU based on the specifications of the stress tests performed to assess safety since 2011 following the Fukushima accident. After the presentation of the new project communication, the Commission will consider the issue of seismicity based on the latest safety assessments. That is, after submitting the mandatory new notification to the EC, the project will be assessed according to the new safety assessment criteria.
5. The compliance of the Bulgarian legislation with the provisions of the Nuclear Safety Directive regarding the transparency of the decision-making process in the licensing of nuclear installations is currently being assessed by the EC. In 2013, a referendum was held and a decision of the National Assembly was adopted for the final termination of the project.
6. The publication of the call for expressions of interest for a strategic investor in the Official Journal of the EU cannot lead to the conclusion that the European Commission has approved the project, nor that it meets all legal requirements; a simple publication of a call for expressions of interest in the Official EU newspaper does not mean that the project falls within the scope of EU public procurement directives. The publication should be seen as a way to increase the publicity and transparency of the call throughout the Union. The publication of the invitation for the procedure for selection of a strategic investor, which has been repeatedly pointed out by the Minister of Energy, in no way means that the legal requirements have been met.
7. The possibility for diversification of nuclear fuel supplies will be considered in the evaluation of the new notification to the EC. In a letter from the Minister of Energy to the EC, it is stated that Bulgaria will cooperate with the Euratom Supply Agency. However, as can be seen from the invitation to participate in the procedure for selecting a strategic investor, the supplier of nuclear fuel is predetermined.
8. The draft contract / draft agreement with the Strategic Investor for the construction of Belene NPP should be communicated to the EC on the basis of Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty, i.e. it will be reviewed and evaluated by the EC.
9. If the Belene project is subject to change, a new EIA or screening will have to be carried out in accordance with Directive 2011/92 / EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52 / EU. The EIA is from 2004. According to the announced plans of the government for the use of control systems of Framatom and a turbogenerator of General Electric, these are considered serious changes and therefore require a new EIA procedure.
10. According to the information available to the EC, the subject of the invitation is the acquisition of shares in a future company, which does not represent a construction, product, or service within the meaning of the EU directives in the field of public procurement. However, the call for expressions of interest cannot be understood as a means of selecting an economic operator who would carry out the construction works himself or provide the services or supplies related to the construction of the Belene NPP, as this could circumvent the EU directives on public procurement, i.e. the provision of supplies and services within the procedure for selection of a strategic investor may lead to the initiation of infringement proceedings against Bulgaria.
In our opinion, owing to the specific questions of lawyer Albena Belyanova, this response letter of the EC gives a great opportunity to understand the absurdity of the statements that Belene NPP is a possible and profitable project for the country, and that we have a license and permits to facilitate the investor.
The position of the European Commission clearly shows that a long process of legalization is forthcoming, meaning another postponement of the construction, which will prove once again the project’s economic insolvency. The rapid development of renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency worldwide and the EC’s special support for the energy transition make this project completely obsolete.
We offer the government:
-To announce the final end of the Belene NPP zombie by terminating the procedure for selecting a strategic investor and announcing an international competition for the creation of an industrial, nuclear-free zone on the plant site, using the built infrastructure. This will stop the waste of taxpayers‘ money. The provision of the site for an industrial zone will be an opportunity to return some of the investments made thus far. Za Zemiata has been insisting on this approach for over 20 years.
-To have a longer-term vision for the development of the energy sector than next year’s elections
-To focus on the development of energy efficiency, decentralization of energy production and access of individual households to renewable energy
– Refusal of energy mega projects that hinder the market principle of development of the sector and the development of competition
– The Ministry of Energy and the entire government must make great effort, bring together all stakeholders and make the best use of the opportunities for increased funding with European sources for the fair energy transition in Bulgaria. They need to prepare in the best way possible the national and regional plans for economic transformation of coal regions.
-The financing opportunities through the Green Deal, the Fair Transition Fund, the EU Economic Recovery Fund after the Covid crisis, React EU, Invest EU will be provided mainly on a competitive basis within the EU. The quality of the plans and projects will be assessed, more funds will be given to candidates from the countries, regions and businesses who have demonstrated greater capacity and vision for low-carbon economic development.
– Cessation of corrupt practices in the energy sector and state service of the interests of oligarchs
Chernobyl– 34 years later, continues to wreak havoc in Europe
April 26, 2020 marks the 34th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster – an event that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands and marked the lives of millions across Europe.
The consequences of the attempts by Soviet leaders at the time to conceal information about the accident are huge throughout Europe. In Bulgaria, the rulers followed the example of „brotherly“ USSR and also did not warn the population of the danger. Safeguarding Soviet interests was more important than protecting the health and life of Bulgarian citizens.
In 1990, the then Prosecutor General’s Office opened a case on the matter.
Grigor Stoichkov, Deputy Prime Minister (1977-1989) and member of the senior leadership of the Communist Party of the Bulgarian Communist Party and Lyubomir Shindarov, Chief Sanitary Inspector during the accident and Deputy Minister of Health, were indicted as defendants in the case.
They are accused of violating the normative documents for the sanitary rules for radiation protection and failing to take sufficiently effective measures to protect the health of the Bulgarian population.
G. Stoichkov was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, Shindarov to 2 years probation with 4 years follow up period. (The perpetrators of the huge theft called Belene NPP construction have not yet been convicted …)
After 1990, a study by a team from the Department of Atomic Physics at Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’, finds that the total radioactivity, postponed in May 1986, is higher than the pure period values as follows:
• 90 to 1400 times in Northern Bulgaria;
• 340 to 1700 times in Southern Bulgaria;
• 1,300 to 31,000 times in mountainous areas.
In terms of pollution (excluding Russia, Ukraine and Belarus), Bulgaria ranks fifth in Europe after Sweden, Finland, Austria and Norway.
In the coming years, doctors in Bulgaria noted a significant increase in health disorders among the population, but of course, under pressure from the authorities, none is related to radiation. The reaction of the World Health Organization (WHO) at that time is also interesting. In 1989, WHO is on the opinion that European health professionals and scientists wrongly attribute the various biological and health effects on radiation.
Despite decades of effort by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the WHO and the nuclear lobby around the world to minimize the effects of nuclear accidents, the public is aware of the dangers of continued use and development of nuclear energy.
The Global Energiewende
Radostina Primova 16 Mar 2020
In the coming months EU member states have to agree on major legislative proposals as part of the European Green Deal and how to support them through the EU’s budget for 2021 – 2027. At its core is the recently drafted European Climate Law, preparing the path for reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. But while the Council and the European Parliament deliberate on the specifics of the pioneering climate law, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe prepare for a nuclear renaissance as part of their climate mitigation strategies.
One of the political compromises during the development of the EU low-carbon roadmap for 2050 was the possibility for some European countries to include nuclear as part of their long-term decarbonisation scenarios. The recent nuclear revival in national energy debates in tandem with EU technology neutrality approach could turn into the Achilles heel of the Energy Union.
The Bulgarian government, in particular, one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU cohesion spending, deems nuclear as a major cure for curbing emissions and promotes it as a key ingredient of the Bulgarian Green Deal. According to the final version of the country’s National Energy and Climate Plan, Bulgaria plans to build a new 2000-MW nuclear power plant Belene that is expected to come online by 2035. The government expects the old Kozloduy plant to co-exist with the new one in the period between 2030 and 2040. Nuclear energy will thus cover 60% of the domestic power supply in 2040, with a total nuclear capacity of 3.89 GW. The numbers in the Bulgarian NECP do not add up, with nuclear clearly crowding out not just coal, but also renewable energy sources, all of which the Bulgarian government claims it would support.
The economic arguments for the NPP Belene are not convincing. Modelling assessments demonstrate that the nuclear power plant will generate losses in the first three decades of its operations. The total losses in the period are calculated to reach 3.5 billion euro. In addition to these costs come also the expenditures for interim storage and deep geological disposal for high-level radioactive waste that have not been properly estimated. The realization of the Belene nuclear project could thus have severe security and financial implications for the Bulgarian energy system, with potential risks for its macroeconomic stability and increasing its dependence on Russian nuclear technology. An analysis of the long-term scenarios for the decarbonization of the power sector in Bulgaria illustrates that a new nuclear capacity would remain severely unutilized in all scenarios, which would lead to stranded assets and lock-in in expensive and unsustainable infrastructure. Moreover, there are allegations that the process of construction, licensing and selecting a strategic investor has violated national public procurement procedures, EU competition law, the Euratom notification rules (Art.41.-43 of the Euratom Treaty), the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the Euratom requirements for public participation on questions regarding nuclear safety of new installations (Directive 2014/87/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations). If proven right, these allegations could cost Bulgaria further millions in penalties and billions in delays and cost overruns, which anyways are a given in the European nuclear projects.
A proper assessment of the ecological risks related to the transportation of radioactive waste from Belene site to Kozloduy site is missing and will add to the mounting cost burden. The low civil liability for nuclear damage is yet another hidden subsidy from future generations. In case of a nuclear disaster, the guarantee in Bulgaria is the lowest one – 100 million Euro, which means that the rest of the costs and the risks will be born entirely by Bulgarian citizens and taxpayers. This is in the face of data from the European-Mediterranean Seismic Hazard Map developed by the European Seismological Commission in 2003, that shows the Belene site as a zone with high seismic risk due to the proximity of the nuclear site to Vrancea – one of the most active seismic zones in Europe.
All these clear economic, environmental and technological risks, as well as Bulgaria’s dismal track record of fiscal waste related to the Belene project, seem unable to deter the country’s government from closing down the project for good. The Bulgarian government has even declared its intention to seek EU funding for its completion. The nuclear revival in Bulgaria also comes amidst a global crisis of nuclear power.
The World Nuclear Industry Report 2019provides evidence for the long-term decline of nuclear power´s role on the global energy market and the crisis of the nuclear sector due to the high costs and the insignificance of nuclear power capacity additions in global market.
Nuclear is not the adequate solution in solving the climate puzzle. It would only lock CEE countries in burdensome dependencies undermining the EU’s climate and sustainability policies. NPP Belene is a ticking time-bomb for future generations that will have to bear its high costs, and the environmental and health risks it poses.
Energy Transition
THE GERMAN ENERGIEWENDE WIKI
NPP Belene: Bulgaria’s ticking time-bomb in the energy transition
In the coming months EU member states have to agree on major legislative proposals as part of the European Green Deal and how to support them through the EU’s budget for 2021 – 2027. At its core is the recently drafted European Climate Law, preparing the path for reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. But while the Council and the European Parliament deliberate on the specifics of the pioneering climate law, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe prepare for a nuclear renaissance as part of their climate mitigation strategies.
One of the political compromises during the development of the EU low-carbon roadmap for 2050 was the possibility for some European countries to include nuclear as part of their long-term decarbonisation scenarios. The recent nuclear revival in national energy debates in tandem with EU technology neutrality approach could turn into the Achilles heel of the Energy Union.
The Bulgarian government, in particular, one of the biggest beneficiaries of EU cohesion spending, deems nuclear as a major cure for curbing emissions and promotes it as a key ingredient of the Bulgarian Green Deal. According to the final version of the country’s National Energy and Climate Plan, Bulgaria plans to build a new 2000-MW nuclear power plant Belene that is expected to come online by 2035. The government expects the old Kozloduy plant to co-exist with the new one in the period between 2030 and 2040. Nuclear energy will thus cover 60% of the domestic power supply in 2040, with a total nuclear capacity of 3.89 GW. The numbers in the Bulgarian NECP do not add up, with nuclear clearly crowding out not just coal, but also renewable energy sources, all of which the Bulgarian government claims it would support.
The economic arguments for the NPP Belene are not convincing. Modelling assessments demonstrate that the nuclear power plant will generate losses in the first three decades of its operations. The total losses in the period are calculated to reach 3.5 billion euro. In addition to these costs come also the expenditures for interim storage and deep geological disposal for high-level radioactive waste that have not been properly estimated. The realization of the Belene nuclear project could thus have severe security and financial implications for the Bulgarian energy system, with potential risks for its macroeconomic stability and increasing its dependence on Russian nuclear technology. An analysis of the long-term scenarios for the decarbonization of the power sector in Bulgaria illustrates that a new nuclear capacity would remain severely unutilized in all scenarios, which would lead to stranded assets and lock-in in expensive and unsustainable infrastructure. Moreover, there are allegations that the process of construction, licensing and selecting a strategic investor has violated national public procurement procedures, EU competition law, the Euratom notification rules (Art.41.-43 of the Euratom Treaty), the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the Euratom requirements for public participation on questions regarding nuclear safety of new installations (Directive 2014/87/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations). If proven right, these allegations could cost Bulgaria further millions in penalties and billions in delays and cost overruns, which anyways are a given in the European nuclear projects.
A proper assessment of the ecological risks related to the transportation of radioactive waste from Belene site to Kozloduy site is missing and will add to the mounting cost burden. The low civil liability for nuclear damage is yet another hidden subsidy from future generations. In case of a nuclear disaster, the guarantee in Bulgaria is the lowest one – 100 million Euro, which means that the rest of the costs and the risks will be born entirely by Bulgarian citizens and taxpayers. This is in the face of data from the European-Mediterranean Seismic Hazard Map developed by the European Seismological Commission in 2003, that shows the Belene site as a zone with high seismic risk due to the proximity of the nuclear site to Vrancea – one of the most active seismic zones in Europe.
All these clear economic, environmental and technological risks, as well as Bulgaria’s dismal track record of fiscal waste related to the Belene project, seem unable to deter the country’s government from closing down the project for good. The Bulgarian government has even declared its intention to seek EU funding for its completion. The nuclear revival in Bulgaria also comes amidst a global crisis of nuclear power. The World Nuclear Industry Report 2019 provides evidence for the long-term decline of nuclear power´s role on the global energy market and the crisis of the nuclear sector due to the high costs and the insignificance of nuclear power capacity additions in global market.
Nuclear is not the adequate solution in solving the climate puzzle. It would only lock CEE countries in burdensome dependencies undermining the EU’s climate and sustainability policies. NPP Belene is a ticking time-bomb for future generations that will have to bear its high costs, and the environmental and health risks it poses.
16.1.2020-Contract-Westinghouse-Kozloduy NPP
Westinghouse has announced that it has signed a contract with Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria to move current Information and Control Systems (I&C) based on the Ovation platform to Units 5 and 6 to the latest standards.The contract with the US company was signed on January 16.
As a provider of the Ovation platform for the nuclear industry, Westinghouse has been deploying Ovation at Kozloduy NPP for over 15 years.
Experts with a letter to the President to stop the construction of Belene NPP
10 well-known experts – former energy executives, economists and university educators – wrote a letter to President Rumen Radev with a copy to Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, Parliament Speaker Tsveta Karayancheva and Prosecutor General Ivan Geshev,warning the risks of Belene NPP construction. Professor Kaschiev is one of the experts who signed the letter, he is also one of the organizers of this group.
Experts are addressing the president with the hope of organizing a public consultation to publicize the objective facts surrounding the project, which they call corrupt and redundant for Bulgaria’s energy system, they want to stop the project.
Plamen Denchev, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy in the 38th National Assembly, 1990-1996
Kiril Ermenkov, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy in the 39th National Assembly, 1997-2001
Georgi Stoilov, Minister of Energy, 1997
Stancho Andreev, Deputy- Chairman of the Energy Committee, 1997-2001
Ivan Hinovski, Executive Director of NEC, 1997 / 98
Georgi Mikov, Executive Director of NEC, 2008 / 09
Prof. Plamen Tsvetanov, Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy at BAS
Prof. Georgi Kaschiev, NRA Chairman, 1997-2001
Assoc. Prof. Krasen Stanchev, Sofia University and Institute for Market Economics
Prof. Hristo Vasilev, Technical University – Sofia
NPP Belene- theft continues. Are we going to plunge the Great Powers into the corruption swamp as well? (11.01.2020)
The Zombie known as “NPP Belene construction project’’ continues to conquer new peaks of corruption, cynicism and brazen lies with the help of a succession of Bulgarian governors.
The idea to build a second NPP was conceived in 1981, when the Government decided to construct 6 nuclear reactors on Danube River, Belene.
With the end of the Communist rule, it became clear that such project would be economically unprofitable, therefore, was scrapped in 1992.
The so-called “White Book” by theBulgarian Academy of Sciences clearly states the arguments for the seismic threat and economic inconsistency of this behemoth.
Eleven years later, in 2003, the desire to steal from the national budget by a group of politicians and energy consultants, serving foreign interests, resumed – the idea this time was to build 2 units, each of 1000 MW.
The formulation “continuation” of project Belene implies that the technology needs to be Russian, with VVER-1000 reactors. This strips down of any meaning the fake auction, organized by the Government, which automatically excludes other bidders.
In April 2005, Miroslav Sevlievski, Minister of Energy, announced how much the construction of Belene NPP would cost: “According to the Ministry of Energy and Energy Resources, the funds for the construction of the two Belene NPPs amount to 2.5-2.6 billion euro.
On October 30, 2006 NEK ranked Atomstroyexport first – with a price not higher than 3.997 billion euros. The company should have incorporated the already existing on site equipment. Later, it turned out that the old equipment could not be used, something all experts concluded even before the so-called auction.
The then Minister of Economy and Energy Rumen Ovcharov declared the project European, which would receive EU support and be implemented with European investors. Of course, nothing like this happened, the German company RWE withdrew in 2009, the project remained Russian, and R. Ovcharov has been parading around the media as an energy expert. What is even worse – no one is holding him accountable, nor anyone else who’s been involved in the criminal draining of the budget, for more than 30 years now!
In 2009, the Russians officially proposed a price of 6 billion euro – a typical construction fraud scheme. At first a low bidding price is offered in order to win the auction and thereafter with annexes and additional agreements the project gets incredibly overpriced. The arguments for the rise in the price vary – indexes, higher price of copper and construction, inflation.
In 2011, the Bulgarian Government announced a competition for economic analysis of the Belene project, which was won by the British Bank HSBC. According to HSBC’s report, the price of the project is 10.352 billion euro. This is yet another corruption scheme, as the economic analysis was ordered by the Bulgarian authorities after 1 billion euro was wrongfully spent. Such economic evaluations should be done when the idea for a project of this grandiosity is conceived, in order to determine whether it is economically lucrative, and whether there are enough resources for its implementation.
NPP Belene is a typical example for debunking the myth that is “cheap” nuclear energy.
Bulgarian taxpayers, citizens of the country with lowest income in the EU, were forced to pay 1.5 billion euro for the construction of an unnecessary and dangerous nuclear plant. In fact, they spent 1.5 billion only for the site of the nuclear plant, which the Bulgarian Prime Minister Borisov called “a swamp”, in 2012.
All agreements between NEC and Russia’s Atomstroyexport, as well as the 810 million euro payments by NEC to the Russian company for the construction of NPP Belene, were made in violation of the Public Procurement Law, as revealed in an audit made by the State Financial Inspection Agency(SFIA), whose report was published in April 2012.
However, the inspection did not draw up an act establishing an administrative violation due to expiration of the 3 year limitation period?! To make the picture even more absurd, the then head of SFIA and current Minister of Energy T.Petkova swiftly changed her position from one opposing corruption in 2012 to her current fiery defense of the NPP project. To this amount, we also need to add 600 million euro which Bulgaria (NEC via national budget loan) paid to Rosatom in 2016 for the equipment which was purchased in 2008. This is how the decision of the Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva was fulfilled, where Rosatom filed a case against NEC.
The negligence of economic logic, society’s interests, and the development of the country continued with yet another turnabout of the NPP Belene idea. The same Prime Minister Borisov and Government which in 2012 scrapped the project, that Prime Minister Borisov called a “corruption swamp”, due to economic unprofitability, in 2018 made a decision to “resume actions on looking for opportunities to build Belene NPP, jointly with a strategic investor, on market principle and without providing a state guaranty.”
Energy Minister T. Petkova expects the strategic investor to be selected from China’s state-owned company CNNC, Russia’s Rosatom, or South Korea’s KNNP.
American General Electric and French Framatome are expected to participate with their own equipment.
The involvement of the Great Powers in our Corruption Swamp continued with Prime Minister Borisov’s visit to the United States at the end of November 2019. At the White House, he had discussions with President Trump about diversification of nuclear fuel suppliers for NPP Kozloduy. The idea was to replace the Russian fuel with that of American producer Westinghouse. However, it turns out that at the beginning of November, NPP Kozloduy had already signed a contract with Russian company TVEL for the delivery of nuclear fuel until 2025…
The other proposition made by Prime Minister Borisov before his US host was the usage of American turbines, manufactured by General Electric for the Russian reactors in NPP Belene. General Electric will also be formally invited to participate in the project in January 2020. According to experts, Americanization of the Russian reactors is technically possible, but will be very expensive. The project will need to be redone and presented as new before the responsible institutions, in order to be licensed. Let us not mention the fact this will cause enormous economic losses to the Russian company, which is not going to use its own turbines.
Framatom, a French company, will also be invited to participate in the project with its security system, in January 2020.
In other words, our government and prime minister, as well as much of the media in the country, expect Belene NPP to be built to operate with Russian reactors, US turbines, a French security system … and the Chinese are expected to pay for all of the aforementioned things.
It is not clear whether the Great Powers would feel comfortable embedded in the corruption swamp that is NPP Belene’s site.
Todor Draganov Todorov
Environmental Association „Za Zemiata“/Friends of the Earth-Bulgaria
Wien, am 12.März 2018
Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei
Forsthausgasse 15/7/11
1200 Wien
Tel. & Fax: 01/865 99 39
E-Mail: atomkraftfreiezukunft@gmx.at www.atomkraftfreiezukunft.at
BETRIFFT: AKW BELENE-PROJEKT in BULGARIEN – AUFRUF der Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei an die österreichische Bundesregierung und die zuständigen Behörden
April 2018: Brief von Frau Minister Elisabeth Köstinger
Den englischen Text finden sie auf der Seite Global News
ELISABETH KÖSTINGER BUNDESMINISTERIUM
Bundesministerin FÜR NACHHALTIGKEIT
UND TOURISMUS
Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei
Forsthausasse 15/7/11
1200 Wien Wien, am 30. Apr. 2018
Sehr geehrte Frau Mag.a Stegmüller!
Sehr geehrte Frau Mag.a Mraz!
Sehr geehrte Frau Mag.a Lorenz!
Ich nehme Bezug auf Ihr Schreiben vom 12. März 2018 betreffend das Projekt Kernkraftwerk Belene.
Zunächst möchte ich für das im Schreiben zum Ausdruck kommende Interesse und Engagement danken. Es ist dies, wie ich schon wiederholt betont habe, eine wertvolle Unterstützung der Arbeit der Bundesregierung.
Ich versichere Ihnen, dass ich den österreichischen Anti-Antomkraft-Weg – wie im Regierungsprogramm ausgeführt – konsequent und mit viel Engagement fortsetzen werde. Dies bedeutet natürlich auch dem Neu- und Ausbau von Atomkraftwerken in Europa, insbesondere in den Nachbarländern, mit allen zur Verfügung stehenden politischen und rechtlichen Mitteln entgegenzuwirken.
Mein Haus befasst sich bereits seit Beginn mit dem Projekt des Kernkraftwerks am Standort Belelne.
Bereits vor 14, Jahren, am 29. April 2004, entschied die bulgarische Regierung, das Projekt der Fertigstellung des KKW Belene konkret in Angriff zu nehmen. Eine Studie zur Umweltverträglichkeit (UVE) wurde im März 2004 fertig gestellt.
Österreich hat ab Juni 2004 eine mögliche Betroffenheit Österreichs im Sinne der Espoo-Konvention durch die geplante Fertigstellung des KKW Belene in Bulgarien geprüft. Ein diesbezügliches offizielles Schreiben des Umweltministeriums an die bulgarische Espoo-Kontaktstelle erfolgte im Juli 2004. Diese Prüfung gestaltete sich jedoch schwierig und langwierig, da die Qualität der von bulgarischer Seite zur Verfügung gestellten UVP-Unterlagen äußerst mangelhaft war, weshalb sich Österreich eine Beteiligung vorbehielt. Bei der 3. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz zum „Übereinkommen über nukleare Sicherheit“ im April 2005 präsentierte Bulgarien ein Sicherheitskonzept für das Projekt Kernkraftwerk Belene, das sehr ehrgeizige Ziele zur Begrenzung der Auswirkungen enthielt, demzufolge keine Sofortmaßnahmen oder langfristige Maßnahmen außerhalb eines Radius von 800 m um den Reaktor und keine verzögerten Maßnahmen zu irgendeinem Zeitpunkt außerhalb eines Radius von 3 km um den Reaktor erforderlich wären. Nach Aufforderung Österreichs erfolgte noch im September 2005 die Bestätigung durch die Direktion „Atomenergie und nukleare Sicherheit“ des Ministeriums für Energetik und Energieressourcen, dass die präsentierten Vorgaben eingehalten werden. Österreich kam daher zum Schluss, dass angesichts dieser modernen Auflagen voraussichtlich mit keinen erheblichen grenzüberschreitenden nachteiligen Auswirkungen auf Österreichs Umwelt zu rechnen wäre und sah zu diesem Zeitpunkt von einer Beteiliung am grenzüberschreitenden UVP-Verfahren ab.
Die Katastrophe von Fukushima hat die kernenergiekritische Position Österreichs in vielen Aspekten bestätigt. Unser Mitgefühl gilt nach wie vor den Opfern dieser Katastrophe.
Die Katastrophe von Fukushima hat aber auch einige Diskussionen und Reflexionen in Europa ausgelöst. Sie führte insbesondere dazu, dass die Sicherheit aller kerntechnischen Anlagen der Europäischen Union einem „Stresstest“ unterzogen und die Richtlinie über die Nukleare Sicherheit überarbeitet wurde. Darin wurde das Sicherheitsziel, Unfälle mit frühen oder großen Freisetzungen von radioaktivem Material in kerntechnischen Anlagen zu vermeiden und im Fall eines Unfalls dessen Auswirkungen abzumildern, verbindlich festgeschrieben. Die in dieser Richtlinie gewählten Formulierungen zeigen aber auch, dass schwere Unfälle mit erheblichen Auswirkungen auch in neuen Kernkraftwerken nicht gänzlich ausgeschlossen werden können. Dessen sind sich die Aufsichtsbehörden Europas nunmehr bewusst. Dies wird in einem gemeinsam von HERCA (Heads of the European Radiological Protection Competent Authorities) und WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators Association) Ende 2014 publizierten Dokument zum Notfallmanagement explizit bestätigt.
Vor diesem Hintergrund ist auch das seinerzeitige Sicherheitskonzept des Projekts Belene in Frage zu stellen. Folglich werden wir zunächst im Wege der Espoo-Kontaktstelle die bulgarische Seite um Klarstellung hinsichtlich der Rechtslage ersuchen, sowie unsere Forderung, an einem allfälligen neuen UVP-Verfahren teilzunehmen, deponieren.
Ich darf Sie ersuchen, mein Antwortschreiben auch den anderen Unterstützern dieses Aufrufs zur Kenntnis zu bringen.
Unter dem Deckmantel der Öffnung und Liberalisierung des Energiemarktes als propagiertem Ziel der offiziellen Politik bleibt das bulgarische Energiewesen in hohem Maße von russischen Interessen abhängig. Nur ein Beispiel: zum Vizeminister des Energieministeriums wurde jemand ernannt, der 2011 in Bezug auf das AKW-Projekt Belene wegen der Bevorzugung der Interessen Moskaus seiner Funktionen beim staatlichen Stromversorgungsbetrieb NEK [Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania] enthoben wurde. Darüber hinaus wurden
Weiterlesen...
Belege für massive Interessenkonflikte publik – sowohl dieser Herr selbst als auch sein Sohn besaßen damals eigene Energieversorgungsbetriebe. Anscheinend ist diese Person nun Moskaus starker Mann, da sie als Vertreter der staatlichen Interessen bei Neftochim [Raffineriebetrieb im Besitz des russischen Konzerns Lukoil] eingesetzt wurde. Auf diesem Posten ist er der Nachfolger von Rumen Ovcharov, der als „Dirigent russischer Energieinteressen“ bezeichnet wurde. Es heißt, er beziehe das Gehalt für seine Arbeit bei Neftochim nicht aus Sofia. Man nimmt offensichtlich an, dass Moskau schon genug bezahlt. Diese Berufung zeigt ganz deutlich, dass es Interessen Russlands sind, welche bei der Energieversorgung konsequent berücksichtigt werden.
Was tatsächlich erreicht wurde
Die heute an der Macht befindlichen Politiker behaupten nun, dass sich die finanzielle Lage der staatlichen Energieversorger durch ihre Maßnahmen stabilisiert habe und im Begriff sei, sich positiv zu entwickeln. Die entsprechenden Zahlen für das Jahr 2016 zeichnen allerdings ein völlig anderes Bild.
Verluste steigen immer weiter
Nur ESO [Elektroenergien Systemen Operator, ein aus der staatlichen NEK ausgegliedertes Unternehmen, das für Betrieb und Instandhaltung des bulgarischen Stromnetzes sowie die Regelung des lokalen Strommarktes zuständig ist; Anmerkung des Übersetzers] weist – so wie üblich – einen Gewinn aus: 78 Mio Lewa (1 Lewa oder BGN ist ca 0,5 €).
Von der Regierung wurde bei NEK ein Reingewinn von mindestens 12 Mio Lewa erwartet. Abgeschlossen wurde aber mit einem Riesenverlust in der Höhe von mindestens 130 Mio Lewa (im Vergleich zu einem Minus von 34 Mio Lewa 2015), trotz Subventionszahlungen in der Höhe von 300 Mio Lewa durch den Fonds für eine sichere Stromversorgung SES. Ende 2016 hatte das Unternehmen Schulden in der Höhe von 4 Mia Lewa; es ist offensichtlich, dass eine Fortführung des Betriebs ohne eine finanzielle Unterstützung durch die Bulgarian Energy Holding BEH und den Staat nicht länger aufrecht erhalten werden könnte. Im Jahr 2016 stieg der Verlust des in Staatsbesitz befindlichen Kohlekraftwerks Maritza Ost 2 auf 90 Mio Lewa – eine Steigerung um 19 Mio verglichen zum Jahr 2015.
Im gleichen Zeitraum fiel der Stromexport auf 6,55 Mia kWh (von 10,56 Mia kWh im Jahr 2015) und schrumpfte bis zur Mitte 2017 um weitere 16% auf Grund eines erhöhten Stromangebots in der Region. Die regierenden Politiker versuchen, diesen Trend zu ignorieren und sprechen weiterhin von der Notwendigkeit, Bulgarien zu einem Energieversorgungszentrum für den Balkan zu machen und halten am Bau des AKW Belene fest.
All diese Fakten bezeugen die düsteren Verhältnisse im Bereich der bulgarischen Stromwirtschaft – sie sind völlig anders, als die Politik glauben machen will. Wie kann es auch anders sein, da die zentralen Probleme nicht gelöst sind: Liberalisierung, Manipulation von öffentlichen Ausschreibungen und Versteigerungen, Korruption, Lobbyismus, übertrieben teure Reparaturen, Diebstahl, die Beschäftigung von zu viel unnötigem Personal, die Bindung durch Langzeitverträge, der Appetit für Monsterprojekte und vieles mehr.
Wohin die Frage der Stromversorgung das Staatsschiff treibt – II
Das AKW Kosloduj und das staatliche Atomprogramm etwas genauer betrachtet:
Im Jahr 2016 produzierte das AKW Kosloduj 2.8% mehr Strom als 2015. Die Einnahmen sanken jedoch, wohingegen die laufenden Kosten dramatisch anstiegen (im Wesentlichen auf Grund von extern zugekauften Leistungen). Der Reingewinn betrug lediglich 1.36 Mio Lewa (im Gegensatz zu 82.4 Mio Lewa im Jahr 2015). Für den Zeitraum von 2017 bis 2021 sind gewaltige Beträge vorgesehen (um die 800 Mio Lewa), um die Laufzeit der Blöcke 5 und 6 verlängern zu können. Dieser Betrag ist wenigstens doppelt so hoch wie die Aufwendungen für den Abschluss gleichartiger Arbeiten an Reaktoren des selben Typs in Russland.
Der „Reingewinn“ etwas genauer betrachtet
In Wirklichkeit sind die für 2015/2016 ausgewiesenen Profite allerdings reiner Schein, denn die dem Werk verpflichtend auferlegte behördliche Anweisung, alljährlich den Rücktransport von mindestens 50 Tonnen hochverstrahlter Metalle (HM) aus den abgebrannten Brennstäben zur Lagerung und Verarbeitung in Russland zu gewährleisten, wurde nicht erfüllt. Die Unterlassung geschah zweifellos mit der Billigung von Minister Petkova. In den Medien wurden lächerliche Erklärungen für diesen Regelverstoß kolportiert, beispielsweise ungünstige Wetterbedingungen oder auch Verzögerungen bei Tests und so weiter. 2015 und 2016 wurden vom AKW für abgebrannten Brennstoff Rücklagen in der Höhe von 29.94 Mio Lewa gebildet (diese Mittel entsprächen den besten Schätzungen, um einen adäquaten Betrag für die in der nächsten Abrechnungsperiode anfallenden Verpflichtungen abdecken zu können). Dieser Betrag ist aber angesichts eines Preises von 1054 Lewa für die Weiterverarbeitung von einem kg hochverstrahlten Metalls aus Brennstäben der alten Reaktoren im Jahr 2012 bei Weitem nicht ausreichend. Für 50 Tonnen sind mindestens 52.7 Mio Lewa von Nöten. Aber auch dieser Betrag ist absehbar nicht ausreichend, da die russische Seite für die Verarbeitung von Material aus den neueren Reaktoren einen wesentlich höheren Preis verlangt.
Bisher wurde noch keine Einigung erzielt, weswegen das Werk seit 2008 lediglich abgebrannten Brennstoff aus den alten Reaktoren verschickt. Mittlerweile sind allerdings keine Brennstäbe dieser Qualität mehr verfügbar, es muss nun der Abtransport des Kernbrennstoffs aus den neuen Reaktoren zu den neuen Preisen beginnen. Die international üblichen Preise für 1 kg TM bewegen sich in der Höhe von 1200 US$ pro kg, es hätten Rücklagen in der Höhe von wenigstens 110 Mio Lewa gebildet werden müssen. Somit haben sich beim AKW Kosloduj also mit Billigung von Minister Petkova im Jahr 2015/16 Verpflichtungen in einer Größenordnung von mindestens 160 Mio Lewa angehäuft, welche die Bilanzen der nächsten Jahre, Jahrzehnte oder sogar für kommende Generationen weiterhin belasten werden.
Eine versteckte Bürde für unsere Kinder
Die sich auftürmende finanzielle Gesamtlast für zukünftige Generationen ist aber noch viel höher. Das Problem besteht darin, dass die abgebrannten Brennelemente (oder der hochaktive Atommüll, der nach einer Wiederaufbereitung verbleibt) schlussendlich einem Endlager zugeführt werden muss. Dies hätte in einer nationalen Strategie des Brennelementmanagements geregelt werden müssen. Alle bisher erstellten Strategien, auch die unter Minister Petkova im Jahr 2015 aktualisierte, schweigen aber in diesem Punkt. Dies hat zur Folge, dass in den entsprechenden Berichten des AKW Kosloduj durchgängig festgehalten wird, das Werk könne die entstehenden Verpflichtungen für eine Endlagerung des Atommülls nicht beziffern und daher auch auch keine diesbezüglichen Rücklagen verbuchen.
Vorausgesetzt, dass ein Ort für ein derartiges Vorhaben überhaupt gefunden werden kann – wie viel würde der Bau eines Endlagers in Bulgarien wohl kosten? Für eine grobe Abschätzung können die Kostenpläne anderer Staaten (Finnland, Schweden, Frankreich, USA) heran gezogen werden. Wenn man den Umfang der jeweiligen Atomprogramme dieser Staaten berücksichtigt, ergibt sich für Bulgarien ein zu erwartender Aufwand in Höhe von 3 Milliarden €.
Indem der Mythos billigen Stroms aus AKWs aufrecht erhalten wird und alle Regierungen eine Debatte über ein Atommüll-Endlager weiter hinauszögern, wird die technisch schwierig zu lösende Aufgabe auf nachfolgende Generationen verschoben, ebenso die Beschaffung der gewaltigen finanziellen Ressourcen, die ein derartiges Vorhaben verschlingen wird. Diese Kosten werden jenen, die zur Beschaffung eines neuen Reaktors notwendig, sind, zumindest ebenbürtig sein.
Wohin die Frage der Stromversorgung das Staatsschiff treibt – III
AKW „Belene“ und kein Ende
Die Hoffnung auf das Erscheinen eines verlässlichen strategischen Investors für das AKW Belene ist vergebens
Das Team von BAS (der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) kann nur schwerlich eine zutreffendere Einschätzung produzieren als die Experten der ESO (der bulgarischen Netzbetreiberfirma), für die derlei zum Kernbereich ihrer Arbeit zählt. Jedes Jahr erstellt die ESO einen Bericht, in dem die Stromproduktion und der Stromverbrauch für einen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren analysiert und prognostiziert wird. Dieser Report wird an CREW (Die Energie- und Wasserregulierungskommission) weitergeleitet. Doch selbst die ESO ist nicht in der Lage, den Elektrizitätsverbrauch korrekt vorherzusagen. Jahr für Jahr ist der tatsächliche Stromkonsum niedriger als der jeweils prognostizierte Minimalbedarf. Jedes Jahr aufs Neue kommt der ESO-Bericht zu dem Schluss, dass der Strombedarf bis Ende der analysierten Periode gedeckt ist und dass es großartige Chancen für einen Stromexport gäbe. Die Aussagen der ESO werden durch mehrere unabhängige Berichte von 2010 und 2011 unterstützt – Bulgarien hat keinerlei Verwendung für eine weitere Großanlage, die Grundlast zur Verfügung stellt. Gebraucht werden vielmehr Ausgleichskraftwerke (zum Beispiel Dampfkraftwerke (?) in den thermischen Kraftwerken Belene und Varna [Unklar, was mit Dampfkraftwerk gemeint sein soll. Durch den Einsatz zeitgemäßer Batterietechnik in Verbindung mit Erneuerbaren ist die Abdeckung von Spitzenlast aber technisch kein Problem mehr; Anmerkung des Übersetzers) und/oder die Einbindung großer Stromverbraucher, um eine Vermeidung von Verbrauchspitzen zu ermöglichen.
Keine Gnade für die Steuerzahler
Es scheint, als ob Regierung und Behörden langsam begreifen, welche gigantischen Kosten (mehr als 20 Mia Lewa) das Projekt des AKW Belene verursacht und welche Probleme die Umsetzung dieses Vorhabens mit sich bringt, namentlich den hohen Preis des dort erzeugten Stroms (8.5 Eurocent oder mehr). Dies führt aber nicht zu dem logischen Schluss, dass dieses Projekt endgültig zu streichen ist, es wird vielmehr darüber nachgedacht, wie die Kosten auf den Steuerzahler abgewälzt werden könnten. Es wurden erste Gespräche geführt, wie sich der Staat finanziell beteiligen könnte; der Staat hat freilich kein Geld, keine Bank würde die Finanzierung übernehmen. Es wurde die törichte Idee ins Spiel gebracht, den Strompreis durch Zahlungen aus dem SES-Fonds zu subventionieren, was unweigerlich massiven Widerstand in der Bevölkerung erzeugen wird. Es wurde auch vorgeschlagen, die Anlagewerte in einer eigenen Firma zu bündeln und zu privatisieren. Dies würde Monate, vielleicht auch Jahre sinnloser Vorarbeiten bedeuten, die Verschwendung von Millionen für Analysen, Prognoseerstellungen, Beraterverträge, die Aufrechterhaltung unnützer Verwaltungsstrukturen und dergleichen mehr.
Zurück und abwärts
Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass sich kein verlässlicher strategischer Partner, der als Investor für das AKW Belene fungiert, zu finden sein wird. Ich erinnere daran, dass alle Atomvorhaben der letzten zehn Jahre, sowohl in Europa als auch in den USA, von jahrelangen Verzögerungen und gewaltigen Kostenüberschreitungen gekennzeichnet waren, bis zu einer Höhe von 8 Milliarden US $ pro 1000 MW Einheit. Aus diesem Grund fiel der Wert von Areva-Aktien seit 2007 um über 70% und im März musste Westinghouse nach dem Auflaufen von 8.3 Mia $ an Verlusten, die beim Bau von 4 neuen Reaktoren in den USA entstanden waren, Konkurs anmelden [Areva musste durch den französischen Staat gerettet werden und ist nun Teil von EDF. Die Firma ist dabei, „umstrukturiert“ zu werden, die nicht mehr zu tilgenden Schulden werden wohl in einer ‚bad company‘ gebündelt. Anmerkung des Übersetzers]. Riesige Summen in AKW-Projekte zu investieren wurde also äußerst riskant. Selbst der russische Staatskonzern hat es abgelehnt, als Investor für das Projekt in Belene aufzutreten.
Sollte dennoch ein Investor Interesse zeigen, wird er sich schnell wieder zurückziehen, sobald ihm nähere Einzelheiten – wie etwa das Erdbebenrisiko – bewusst werden, nachdem er Fotos vom „Wasserloch“ gesehen hat, welches sich unter Block 1 gebildet hat, oder Bilder von den neuen Bauteilen, die bei Regen im Hafen von Belene abgekippt wurden, oder aber nachdem er von den Problemen bei der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung erfahren hat, den korrupten Praktiken der Regierung, der Geschichte des Projektmanagements, den Gründen für den Rückzug sämtlicher Investoren bisher, dem Fehlen von gut ausgebildeten Arbeitskräften. Sollte jemand das Abenteuer wagen, wird er mit Sicherheit nur einen Bruchteil der aktuell bereits aufgelaufenen Kosten übernehmen und eine langjährige Strompreisgarantie verlangen. Der Staat könnte dazu verpflichtet werden, das bestehende Elektrizitätsnetz zu modernisieren und den Anschluss des neuen Kraftwerk an eben dieses Netz zu ermöglichen (Kosten hierfür: laut einer Studie der ESO von 2009 (?) 1.33 Mia Lewa), neue Stromleitungen zu den Nachbarländern zu bauen, die Übernahme von Zahlungen nach einem potenziellen Störfall weitgehendst zu übernehmen, die Endlagerung des Atommülls zu bezahlen, usw. Wenn die Regierung derartige Bedingungen annimmt, bedeutet das einen Verrat am Staat.
Zusammenfassend: in der Frage der Stromversorgung befindet sich das Staatsschiff auf einer Fahrt im Rückwärtsgang, vielleicht auf einer Fahrt in die Tiefe.
Wir möchten Ihnen hier die aktuellen Entwicklungen rund um das Projekt, ein AKW in Belene zu errichten, vorstellen, und werden auch auf die Pläne bezüglich der Laufzeitverlängerungen für Block 5 und 6 des AKW Kozloduy eingehen.
Weiterlesen...
Und immer auf‘s Neue: Belene
Ende 2016 bezahlte der staatliche bulgarische Elektrizitätskonzern NEC infolge einer Entscheidung durch die Schlichtungsstelle der Internationalen Handelskammer 620 Millionen Euro an Atomstroiexport. Dieser Betrag wurde für bestellte, aber nie bezahlte Bauteile des mittlerweile gestrichenen „AKWs Belene“ fällig. Entsprechend stiegen die aus dem Staatsbudget geleisteten Zahlungen auf 1,2 Milliarden Euro. Dies veranlasste die bulgarische Staatsanwaltschaft, gegen drei frühere Energieminister Verfahren wegen der Verletzung der Aufsichtspflicht einzuleiten. Die Anklagepunkte sind aber äußerst vage und allgemein formuliert, sie zielen nur drauf ab, Tätigkeit vorzutäuschen, es fehlt an glaubhaftem Interesse, die Verantwortlichen für dieses korrupte Vorhaben zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen und auch bestrafen zu wollen.
Die Atomlobby in Bulgarien hat ihren Druck erhöht und besteht darauf, dass die Anlage gebaut werden soll, da bereits ein derart immenser Betrag in das Unterfangen investiert worden sei. Dem Energieminister zufolge sollen wir die zwei russischen Reaktoren bis Ende April bekommen.
Im August wird darüber hinaus die Lieferung von zwei Turbinen für die Reaktorblöcke erwartet. Die Bauteile werden auf dem Gelände des AKW Belene konserviert und so lange eingelagert, bis der Bedarf an zusätzlicher Atomstromkapazität analysiert wurde und der Privatisierungsprozess beginnen kann. Dies wird dann allerdings eine Priorität der neuen Regierung darstellen, denn Anfang April stehen Parlamentswahlen an. Die Bauteile werden also auf dem Gelände des AKW Belene verbleiben, bis ein Abnehmer gefunden werden kann oder aber eine gegenläufige Entscheidung bei diesem zweifelhaften Projekt getroffen wird.
Die Regierung hat die Bulgarische Akademie der Wissenschaften (BAS) beauftragt, eine technische, ökonomische und finanzielle Analyse des Vorhabens zu erstellen. Nach Aussage des Energieministers sollen sich diese Analysen ausschließlich an marktwirtschaftlichen Gegebenheiten orientieren, ohne jegliche direkte oder auch nur indirekte Beteiligung der Politik, ohne Staatsgarantien und ohne langfristige Abnahmeverträge.
Eine Entscheidung zum AKW Belene würde nach dem Vorliegen des Resultates dieser Analysen getroffen.
Sollte das Resultat der Analysen negativ ausfallen, wolle die Regierung nach Wegen suchen, um die zwei ungenutzten Reaktoren zu verkaufen.
Im Dezember 2016 kam es zu Treffen zwischen dem Premierminister und Vertretern der China General Nuclear Corporation (CGN) sowie der Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Nach diesen Treffen haben Vertreter der Regierung verlautbart, die chinesischen Großbetriebe hätten ihrer Bereitschaft Ausdruck verliehen, das Projekt zu den durch die bulgarische Regierung vorgegeben Bedingungen umsetzen zu wollen.
Bezüglich der von der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften durchgeführten Analysen möchten wir in Erinnerung rufen, dass bulgarische Wissenschaftler der Akademie im Jahr 1990 massive Bedenken gegen die Errichtung des AKW Belene äußerten. Die Einwände wurden in einer 400 Seiten starken Studie, allgemein das „Weißbuch der bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften“ genannt, publiziert.
Za Zemiata (Bulgarisches Kapitel von Friends of the Earth; Anm. d. Übers.) hat versucht, die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung des Projektes AKW Belene vor Gericht anzufechten. Die Regierung steht auf dem Standpunkt, dass diese bereits seit 2004 abgeschlossen sei. Wenn wir erfolgreich sind, dann können wir die Wiederaufnahme des Projektes um einige wenige Jahre verzögern. Dazu benötigen wir die Unterstützung von Anwälten, Medien und diesem Vorstoß.
Nach unseren eigenen Untersuchungen ist eine Privatisierung des Projektes unter den von der Regierung gestellten Bedingungen unmöglich. Bei der Umsetzung eines Atomprojektes ist die Abklärung der Versicherung gegen die Atomgefahren der wichtigste Punkt.
Private Investoren werden mit Sicherheit die Übernahme des Sicherheitsrisikos durch den Staat fordern. Ohne Staatsgarantien und einer wie auch immer gearteten Form von Stromankaufsgarantie wird es schwer werden, einen Interessenten für die Umsetzung des Projektes AKW Belene zu finden.
Am 11. Januar hat das Parlament den Antrag der Opposition zurückgewiesen, den Beschluss zur Annullierung der Errichtung des AKW Belene am 29. März 2012 seinerseits rückgängig zu machen. Je nach Ergebnis der bevorstehenden Wahlen im März ist Druck zugunsten eines Neustarts des Projektes von Politikern und Lobbyisten zu erwarten; wir sollten darauf vorbereitet sein.
Die Laufzeitverlängerungen für Block 5 und 6 des AKW Kozloduy
Nach den letzten verfügbaren Nachrichten werden sich die Kosten für die Ermöglichung einer Laufzeitverlängerung der Blöcke 5 und 6 des AKW Kozloduy auf 220 Millionen Euro belaufen.
Die zwei Reaktoren werden zur Zeit nachgerüstet, um neue Betriebsgenehmigungen erhalten zu können. Die Betriebsbewilligung für Block 5 läuft im November 2017 aus. Eine Analyse des Zustandes der Anlage sowie Empfehlungen für Verbesserungen wurden bei der Atomaufsichtsbehörde eingereicht. Um eine neuerliche Betriebserlaubnis zu erhalten, müssen sämtliche Empfehlungen 2017 umgesetzt werden. Die Bewilligung von Block 6 erlischt im Oktober 2019. Derzeit laufen Erhebungen, welche Nachrüstungen nötig sind, um eine Laufzeitverlängerung zu gestatten.
Diese Nachrüstungsarbeiten finden in Kooperation mit der russischen Firma Rusatom Services statt, einem Teil des Atomkonzerns Rosatom.
Dem Energieminister zufolge wurden alle Investitionen für die Modernisierung vom Kraftwerksbesitzer getätigt. Wir versuchen mehr Informationen über die Parameter dieser technischen Verbesserungen zu erhalten, um diese von unabhängigen Experten analysieren und beurteilen zu lassen.
Weniger zeigen
Das Märchen von der Renaissance der Kernkraft
von Dr. George Kaschiev, 29.11.2016
Die Behauptung, es gäbe keinen Atomreaktor, der einen Verlust erwirtschaftet, ist unrichtig.
Mit den nachfolgenden Beispielen aus den letzten paar Jahren beweise ich diese Feststellung:
Weiterlesen...
In den USA wurden während der letzten vier Jahre sechs Reaktoren mit einer Kapazität von insgesamt 4730 MW frühzeitig stillgelegt. Es handelt sich um Crystal River 3, San Onofre 2 und 3, Kewaunee, Vermont Yankee und Fort Calhoun 1. Die ersten drei hätten umfassender Reparaturen bedurft und wurden dadurch unrentabel. Die anderen drei sind bereits heute nur mehr mit Verlust zu betreiben, bedingt durch niedrige Energiepreise, einen stagnierenden Strombedarf und infolge des niedrigen Elektrizitätspreises aus Gaskraftwerken. Aus all diesen Gründen könnten 15 – 20 Reaktoren bis 2025 abgeschaltet werden.
Aber auch in Europa ist mit Atomkraft kein Gewinn zu erzielen. Anfang 2013 wurde der Atomreaktor in Santa María de Garoña (466 MW) wegen drohenden Bankrotts stillgelegt. In Schweden sollen vier von zehn derzeit noch in Betrieb befindlichen Reaktoren vorzeitig abgeschaltet werden, da die Betreiber davon ausgehen, dass diese in absehbarer Zeit in die Verlustzone schlittern. Es handelt sich um Oskarshamn 1 (492 MW) und Oskarshamn 2 (661 MW), die für eine Schließung Mitte 2017 vorgesehen sind und um Ringhals 1 (916 MW) sowie Ringhals 2 (910 MW) von Vattenfall, die 2020 respektive 2019 vom Netz genommen werden sollen.
Gab es also seit dem Jahr 2000 eine Renaissance der Atomkraft?
Dem Wörterbuch zufolge bedeutet Renaissance ein Wiederaufleben, Blüte, einen Wiederanstieg. Tatsache ist aber, dass die Kernkraft nirgendwo auf der Welt floriert, dass nur vereinzelt einige Staaten aus sehr spezifischen Gründen weiterhin am Reaktorbau festhalten.
Entsprechend den Daten, die von der International Nuclear Energy Agency Ende 2000 erhoben wurden, waren 435 Atomreaktoren mit einer Gesamtkapazität von 350 GW in Betrieb. Im Vergleich dazu waren Ende 2015 441 Reaktoren mit einer Gesamtleistung von 383 GW in Betrieb. Das bedeutet innerhalb von 15 Jahren einen vernachlässigbaren Zuwachs bei der Erzeugung von Atomstrom von lediglich 33 GW oder 9,4 %. Im Vergleich dazu ist in derselben Periode Ende 2015 die Produktion von Windstrom um fast 64 GW angewachsen, (das ist ein jährlicher Zuwachs von 17,2%) und erreicht somit 435,9 GW.
Atomstrom ist auf dem Rückzug.
Außerdem beinhaltet die Statistik der INEA (International Nuclear Energy Agency) für 2015 44 Reaktoren (die meisten davon in Japan), von denen aber nur zwei Strom produzieren: Sendai 1 und 2. Die restlichen Reaktoren sind nun schon seit Jahren außer Betrieb. Rechnet man also nur mit denjenigen Reaktoren, die auch tatsächlich Strom produzieren, dann ist klar, dass die Produktion der Kernkraft nicht zunimmt, sondern im Gegenteil abnimmt.
Dieser Schluss ist durch die folgenden Zahlen belegt: 2015 haben AKWs 2441,3 TWh Strom produziert, das ist weniger als im Jahr 2000 (2443,8 TWh). Analog dazu ist der Anteil von Atomstrom von 18% im Jahr 1996 auf wenig mehr als 12% im Jahr 2014 gefallen.
Im Jahr 2000 waren im Bereich der EU-28 169 Atomreaktoren in Betrieb, im Jahr 2015 ist diese Zahl auf 127 Reaktoren geschrumpft (bei einer Gesamtleistung von 121 GW, 27% der erzeugten Elektrizität). In dieser Zeit sind nur zwei Reaktoren ans Netz gegangen – Mohovce 1 und 2. Der Bau von gerade einmal vier neuen Reaktoren wurde in Angriff genommen. Die Bauvorhaben waren von Verzögerungen (der Rückstand im Baufortschritt betrug bis zu 10 Jahre) und gewaltigen Beschaffungskosten (4900 – 6200 Euro pro KW Leistung) geprägt. Dies zeigt, dass sich die Atomenergie in der EU in einem massiven Abschwung befindet, keinesfalls aber in einer Renaissance. Diese Renaissance ist für die absehbare Zukunft auch nicht zu erwarten. Frankreich hat beispielsweise beschlossen, die Atomenergie auf die aktuelle Leistung von 63,2 GW zu beschränken, wobei der Anteil von Atomstrom von heute 76,3% bereits 2025 auf 50% vermindert werden soll.
Prognosen der Europäischen Kommission (Nuclear Illustrative Programme, PINC) vom April 2016 gehen von einer Verringerung der Reaktorleistung im Jahr 2050 auf 95 – 105 GW aus, wobei der Anteil von Atomenergie auf 17 – 21% fallen würde. Idealerweise sollten alle Politiker dieses Dokument lesen, aber leider ist dies eher unwahrscheinlich.
Nach dem Jahr 2000 wurden in den USA 6 Reaktoren stillgelegt und nur ein einziger neuer ging ans Netz, was denselben Trend anzeigt – es ist keine Renaissance, sondern ein Rückgang der Atomenergie festzustellen. Derzeit sind 99 Reaktoren in den USA in Betrieb mit einer Gesamtleistung von 99 GW, was knapp 20% der Stromproduktion bedeutet. 2013 wurde der Bau von vier Reaktoren begonnen, wobei es bereits fast drei Jahre Bauverzögerung gibt und eine Kosteneskalation auf über 5500 US$ pro KW. Es vorhersehbarer Zukunft sind keine weiteren Reaktorneubauten geplant.
Die Vorschau der US Energy Information Agency von 2016 zeigt, dass es auch zu keinem neuen Aufschwung der Atomenergie kommen wird: Im Jahr 2040 wird die Kapazität der Reaktoren auf gleichem Niveau liegen wie heute, um die 99 GW. Die Leistung der gasbetriebenen Kraftwerke wird aber um das 1,5 fache steigen (von heute 202,3 GW auf ca 318,7 GW).
Aus ganz speziellen Gründen wird der Reaktorbau in China, Russland und Indien weiterhin fortgesetzt (das betrifft die Hälfte aller zur Zeit in Bau und in Betrieb befindlichen Reaktoren) sowie in Korea und Pakistan.
China ist eine der mächtigsten und eine am schnellsten wachsende Wirtschaftsmacht der Erde. Um den Strombedarf zu befriedigen, wurden viele Wärmekraftanlagen errichtet, die mit fossilen Brennstoffen betrieben werden, hauptsächlich mit Kohle. Kohlekraftwerke produzierten 2015 73% der Elektrizität im Land. Diese Strategie hat zu einer erheblichen Luftverschmutzung geführt, China wurde zum größten Umweltverschmutzer der Welt. Dies machte den Bau von AKWs und Erneuerbaren unabdingbar. Derzeit sind in China 36 Atomreaktoren in Betrieb (mit einer Gesamtleistung von 31,4 GW) und 20 neue Reaktoren in Bau (mit einer Gesamtleistung von 20,5 GW). Bemerkenswert ist aber, dass China bei der Erschließung von erneuerbaren Energien führend ist, insbesondere bei der Windkraft mit einer Gesamtleistung von 148 GW Ende 2015. Kürzlich wurden zwei neue Kraftwerke mit einer Leistung von 34 GW ans Netz gebracht.
Russland bleibt auch weiterhin hartnäckig ein Befürworter der Kernenergie, was wohl der Grund für die atomkraftfreundliche Haltung der Politiker ist. Derzeit sind in Russland 36
Reaktoren in Betrieb (mit einer Gesamtleistung von 26,6 GW) und 7 neue Reaktoren sind in Bau (5,5 GW). Russlands ehrgeiziges Ausbauprogramm der Kernenergie wurde aber bereits mehrfach deutlich abgeschwächt. Die letzte dieser Anpassungen geschah im August 2016 mit der Annahme eines Plans, der den Baubeginn von 11 neuen Atomreaktoren bis 2030 vorsieht (im Gegensatz zu 21 Reaktoren, wie es noch 2013 vorgesehen war). Ein führender Beamter erklärte aus diesem Anlass, dass „wir keine AKWs bauen werden, die sich dann als unnötig erweisen“.
Das Beispiel von Vietnam ist für Bulgarien besonders lehrreich. Die Wirtschaft Vietnams wächst sehr rasch (6% jährlich). Zusammen mit Russland und Japan hat Vietnam den Bau von zwei Kraftwerken mit jeweils zwei 1000 MW Reaktorblöcken geplant. Bedingt durch den anhaltend niederen Gaspreis, durch das Potential der Erneuerbaren und deren fallenden Gestehungskosten, den nur halb so stark ansteigenden Stromverbrauch und die enormen Kosten beim Bau von AKWs billigte das Parlament am 22 November 2016 den Vorschlag der Regierung, den Bau dieser zwei Atomkraftwerke zu stornieren.
Dr. George Kaschiev ist Kernphysiker. Er arbeitet als wissenschaftlicher Berater am Institut für Risikoforschung der Universität Wien. Er war Betreuer der Orte auf der Fifth von NPP „Kosloduj“ im Zeitraum 1972-1989 hat an der Technischen Universität gelehrt und war Teil der amerikanischen Firma „Westinghouse“. Kaschiev ist Professor für Kernreaktoren am Tokyo Institute of Technology. Er war Vorsitzender des Ausschusses für die Nutzung der Atomenergie für friedliche Zwecke, die später in eine Nuclear Regulatory Agency umgewandelt wurde.
Die wichtigsten Punkte der Belene-Debatte in Sofia vom 27.Sept. 2016:
Weiterlesen...
1. Belene ist wegen der festgestellten höheren Erdbebengefahr für ein AKW ungeeignet.
2. Die Regierung muss eine Entscheidung treffen, dass das Gelände von den Vermögenswerten von NEC (National Electric Company) geräumt werden kann.
3. Es kam die innovative Idee auf, dass das Gelände wirtschaftlich genützt werden könnte – mit Einbeziehung von Svishtov, Belene und Nikopol.
4. Es gab den Vorschlag, eine Bürger-Kommission einzurichten, um die illegalen Machenschaften und die schuldigen Personen aufzuzeigen. Diese Idee kam in der Debatte deshalb auf, weil die Bulgarischen Behörden die Untersuchung an der Staatsgelder-Verschwendung kurzfristig beendeten, dann aber wieder eröffneten. Diesmal werden jedoch nicht die Beamten untersucht, sondern nur die offiziellen Personen der Nationalen Elektrizitätsgesellschaft (NEC).
Eine von Bürgern eingesetzte Kommission kann natürlich nicht die Staatsgelder zurückbringen, aber sehr wohl kann sie Dokumente und Zeugen für die Korruptionsvorgänge rund um Belene finden, und so auf die staatlichen Institutionen Druck ausüben, dass sie ihren Job machen.
Weniger zeigen
(entnommen aus Emails von Todor Todorov, zusammengestellt von Paula Stegmüller)
Cookie-Zustimmung verwalten
Um dir ein optimales Erlebnis zu bieten, verwenden wir Technologien wie Cookies, um Geräteinformationen zu speichern und/oder darauf zuzugreifen. Wenn du diesen Technologien zustimmst, können wir Daten wie das Surfverhalten oder eindeutige IDs auf dieser Website verarbeiten. Wenn du deine Zustimmung nicht erteilst oder zurückziehst, können bestimmte Merkmale und Funktionen beeinträchtigt werden.
Funktional
Immer aktiv
Die technische Speicherung oder der Zugang ist unbedingt erforderlich für den rechtmäßigen Zweck, die Nutzung eines bestimmten Dienstes zu ermöglichen, der vom Teilnehmer oder Nutzer ausdrücklich gewünscht wird, oder für den alleinigen Zweck, die Übertragung einer Nachricht über ein elektronisches Kommunikationsnetz durchzuführen.
Vorlieben
Die technische Speicherung oder der Zugriff ist für den rechtmäßigen Zweck der Speicherung von Präferenzen erforderlich, die nicht vom Abonnenten oder Benutzer angefordert wurden.
Statistiken
Die technische Speicherung oder der Zugriff, der ausschließlich zu statistischen Zwecken erfolgt.Die technische Speicherung oder der Zugriff, der ausschließlich zu anonymen statistischen Zwecken verwendet wird. Ohne eine Vorladung, die freiwillige Zustimmung deines Internetdienstanbieters oder zusätzliche Aufzeichnungen von Dritten können die zu diesem Zweck gespeicherten oder abgerufenen Informationen allein in der Regel nicht dazu verwendet werden, dich zu identifizieren.
Marketing inkl. US Anbieter (Google reCAPTCHA)
Die technische Speicherung oder der Zugriff ist erforderlich, um Nutzerprofile zu erstellen, um Werbung zu versenden oder um den Nutzer auf einer Website oder über mehrere Websites hinweg zu ähnlichen Marketingzwecken zu verfolgen.
Off