2013 Bulgarian referendum on nuclear energy

[GMantis]

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

[Franzl]

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

[Famous Mortimer]

So BSP if for or against?

[Tender Branson]

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

[Zanas]

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

This whole project is crazy.

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

So BSP if for or against?

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

This whole project is crazy.

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[minionofmidas]

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

[GMantis]

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

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

[minionofmidas]

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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

According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zanas]

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

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you also avoided reading my arguments