2013 Bulgarian referendum on nuclear 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.

[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.

[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!).

[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.

[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 ..

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

As a matter of fact, several major European banks, among them Deutsche Bank, PNB Paribas and Unicredit, had looked into financing the project and carried out detailed estimates, but all declined participation in 2008/2009 when arriving at some 11 billion Euro total cost, against the originally projected 4 billion Euro.  With them, German utility giant RWE, that was originally assumed to take a 49% share in the project, withdrew its engagement. Already in 2006, Standard & Poor's had downrated Bulgaria's NEK from "developing" to "negative"  because or its 51% participation in Belene.
In the meantime, HSBC as advisor of the Bulgarian government has come out with a € 10.35 bn cost estimate "under the most optimistic scenario" (!), translating into some 7.5 €ct/kWh  power generation cost at Belene.

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

You're incorrect about AES 92 being a 1200 MWe model, there are also AES 92 with a capacity of 1000 MWe. See, for example: "h. The AES-92 design has VVER-1000 reactors considered to be Genereation III". In fact, the article that is used for a source for the statement you cited states exactly that "According to the notification received, the AES92 is a pressurised water reactor, with a power capacity of 1049 MWe. The two units, which will provide a total installed electrical power of 2000 MWe".

O.k., that was a misunderstanding on my part - I had not realised that VVER-xxxx related to the installed electrical power, rather than signifying the technical generation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

[

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I probably did not make my point well: When you burn natural gas (CH4), you burn four atoms of hydrogene plus one atom of carbon. So the CO2 reduction compared to coal stems first of all from the fact that you partially replace carbon by hydrogene as energy source. Efficiency also plays a role (approx. 35% of the CO2 reduction). But essentially, natural gas gets you are as close to a hydrogene-based (zero CO2) energy system as you can get with fossil fuels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franknburger]

[

[

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

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

My figures on installed windpower capacity came from the European Wind Energy Association, which may have used a different method (e.g. including projects still under construction), but I am fine with takking the Bulgarian Association's official data.

 I am irritated by two things: First of all, while you are right that theoratical capacity is not actual production, wind power in Germany yields some 16-19% of theoretical output, ins spite of partial grid access problem that cause producers to reduce output.  Note that the German yield is based on a much higher installed capacity, so it shoukl already have diminsihing returns factured in.
Your figure of only some 8% yield in Bulgaria sounds by all means too low - either because you are comparing apples with oranges (i.e including solar, which only hais half the yield as wind, in your analysis), or because many of the plants are fairly new, and as such have not produced over the whole year. As a matter of fact, actual yield shold be higher than in Germany, as Bulgaria's installations are comparatively modern, and there have been significant yield gains over the last years. While 1990 installations still ran below 15% yield, the latest wind plant generation achieves more than 30% yield under optimal conditions (Wind park Stadlum on the German North Sea cost, 2012 actual: 37%) .
For maintenance reasons, nuclear plants, btw, also only yield 80-90% of their theoretical output (calculated for Germany, again). So, yes, you need around three to five times as much installed windpower capacity compared to nuclear plants. Replacing Belene would require 6,000 -10,000 MW installed wind power capacity, or some two- to three thousand mid-sized plants @ 3 MW  That is one plant every 40-50 km², or, more realisticly, a 5-6 unit wind park every 250 km². Not something I would call extremely dense, destroying all of Bilgaria's mountains, etc..

Now here is the second thing that puzzles me: While you deem the 2011-2012 growth of 180 MW of Bulgaria's wind power as irregular (above average) growth rate, to me it is rather low (some sixty  new installations per year). Germany, with a land area three times as large as Bulgaria) achieved around ten times of that. Bad comparison? O.k, what about Romania (500 MW / year), Portugal (377 MW in 2012), Poland (450 MW / year) or Ireland (239 MW in 2012, two-thirds the size of Bulgaria) [All data from the IWEA link above]. I would say, 400 MW / year is well achievable, and that would be sufficient to replace one of the two Belene blocks before it goes into operation.

[

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

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

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

Unless, of course, there is a major consumer, e.g. a natural gas-fired power plant, on the western shore of the Black Sea ...

[Franknburger]

While my math may not be the best, yours sometimes also leaves room for improvemt . 

Just as I did, you conveniently forgot to consider that also nuclear reactors do not always run at full capacity (somebody told me that they can be regulated ..), and they reguire regular shutdown over several weeks for nuclear fuel rods replacement.

By the way - it might be interesing for you to look across the Danube into neighbouring Romania. Ever heard of the Cernavod Nuclear Plant? It was envisaged to construct two new blocks (750 MW each) there. Joint venture of the national energy company with large European investors (RWE, SUEZ, Enel etc.). In January 2011, the investors withdrew due to "economic and market-related uncertainties". Sounds familiar?

Now comes the clou: Some 10 km from Cernavoda, the Czech utility company CEZ (partner of the original Cernavoda consortium) has just completed , Europe's largest wind farm, with an installed capacity of 600 MW, and a projected 30% yield. Costruction lasted 4 years (2 phases, @ 2 years), total cost was 1.1 bn €.

So, yes, I was wrong - It takes 5 wind farms to replace one Belene block, and they could actually be up and running within 4-5 years. So don't be too frustrated about the referendum, lights will not go out in Bulgaria.

Btw: You only posted exit polls, but not the actual outcome of the referendum (regional breakdown or map would also be nice).

[Franknburger]

BTW, how do you create those Atlas-like maps with scales and Atlas colours ?

And is there one for Austria as well ?

The Atlas colors are easy - you simply copy the Atlas Master Key.
Regarding the maps, you'll probably can find them on the Internet.

And how do I get the color shades ?

These are the original color shades. I left out a few intermediate ones to provide better contrast.

Ok, but how do I get the exact colors in Paint like on the Atlas and how do you put the "master key" into the map ?

Or do I need a different program for making those maps ?

Copy the Master Key image into Paint, then use "pick color" to copy colors. You can copy parts or whole of the Master Key with the "select" tool.
Of course you can use another program, but Paint should be sufficient for this kind of maps.

Thx. But are you sure this works with Windows Vista Paint ? I can only choose "define color" and then I have put in some values or "guess" the shade of the color in the master key ...

I suggest using a SVG editor, e.g. Inkscape - its freeware). Much more convenient - you get svg district and county map for virtually all countries on Wikimedia Commons, and sinc it is vector graphics, you don't have to bother with erroneously rubbing out district borders, the small island off the coast trouple, etc.

[Franknburger]

While my math may not be the best, yours sometimes also leaves room for improvemt . 

Just as I did, you conveniently forgot to consider that also nuclear reactors do not always run at full capacity (somebody told me that they can be regulated ..), and they reguire regular shutdown over several weeks for nuclear fuel rods replacement.

By the way - it might be interesing for you to look across the Danube into neighbouring Romania. Ever heard of the Cernavod Nuclear Plant? It was envisaged to construct two new blocks (750 MW each) there. Joint venture of the national energy company with large European investors (RWE, SUEZ, Enel etc.). In January 2011, the investors withdrew due to "economic and market-related uncertainties". Sounds familiar?

Now comes the clou: Some 10 km from Cernavoda, the Czech utility company CEZ (partner of the original Cernavoda consortium) has just completed , Europe's largest wind farm, with an installed capacity of 600 MW, and a projected 30% yield. Costruction lasted 4 years (2 phases, @ 2 years), total cost was 1.1 bn €.

So, yes, I was wrong - It takes 5 wind farms to replace one Belene block, and they could actually be up and running within 4-5 years. So don't be too frustrated about the referendum, lights will not go out in Bulgaria.

I admit that I forgot about the capacity of the nuclear plant, which would make the years required about 8 and a half (and under very optimistic conditions). In reality, twenty would be probably more realistic and that if their current efficiency is considerably improved.

Regarding your example with the Romanian wind farm, let me correct you - it takes 5 of Europe's largest wind farms to replace one of Belene's reactors and this if they're running under the most optimal conditions. And constructing five of those would cost 5.5 bn €, which is about half of the price claimed for Belene by the government while it was trying to find excuses about abandoning the project.

So in conclusion - under the most optimistic conditions, assuming substantial technological advances and continued availability of good spots for wind farms, producing enough wind farms to replace the whole plant would only take 17 years. Realistically, my asertion that the wind farms would ready by the time Belene would have closed is not too far of.

And no, lights won't go out. We'll just have to import electricity from countries, whose governments make decisions without checking with the American embassy first.

Btw: You only posted exit polls, but not the actual outcome of the referendum (regional breakdown or map would also be nice).

Full results were not available until late yesterday, but here is the map by province:



It's based on these results, but I've recalculated them to exclude invalid votes. The final results, after this calculation are 61.49% "yes" and conversely 38.51% "no".
The map seems to confirm my earlier observation about the breakdowns following the usual pattern, with some exceptions. Most visibly, Pleven Province (the one in the central north) which generally leans to the right, has among the highest percentage of "yes" votes (73.64%), which is not surprising considering that this is where the Belene plant was to be built. As I mentioned above, MRF voters (which are practically synonymous with Turks in most of the country) had low turnout, but voted nearly four to one for Belene, which explains why some of the best results for the referendum were in provinces with a Turkish majority or large percentages of the population. The highest result for the "yes" side was in fact in Kardzhali (in the southeast), which is over 60% Turkish and had 74.12% voting yes.
The lowest percentages for the "yes" side where in the three biggest cities of Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. The lowest result was in the second Sofia district (52.22%), where the old UDF had once its greatest stronghold.

Alright, since the referendum is over, I think we can stop the nuclear debate now - we will most likely not come together anytime soon. Neverthelees, I enjoyed the debate, as well as various of tyour posts on other threads.

Thanks for the map. Sofia and Plovdiv are obvious, but the coastal district looks too large to just be Varna. Could it be that some residents on the coast have been speculating on benefitting from wind energy development, if Belene fails? Or, maybe, some were afraid that news of Belene construction might scare away tourists.
Another lighter green district is a bit downstream from Pleven. Is it Ruse? And, if so, just the urban vote making the difference, or are their other factors in play?

[Franknburger]

I've looked up and calculated a few more municipality results and some interesting conclusions can be drawn. Regarding Varna, it was indeed the city that was least supportive of Belene, with about 52.2% "yes", while the rest of the province voted about 63.8% in favor, but due to almost 75% of the votes being in Varna, it averages it out to 54.99% overall.

Franknburger's suggestion that areas with rival power plants might be opposed turned out to be right in some cases, though not where he expected it. For example, the municipality of Radnevo where the Maritsa Istok Complex, Bulgaria's largest coal-fired power plant, is partially located, voted against the Belene plant with about 53% of the votes. On the other hand, the municipality of Kozloduy, where Bulgaria's current nuclear plant is located, voted 79.2% in favor, despite the recent scare tactics to claim that their plant would be closed sooner if Belene were built (then again, having the former prime minister Kostov carry out this campaign was probably not the brightest idea).

Regarding the idea that  Danube settlements downstream of Belene would not like the plant, the evidence is not conclusive, though Svishtov, the town where 100 people died in an earthquake in 1977, supported it only by a narrow margin (53% yes).

Fascinating details. Could you check two more things:
1. Coal minig areas (I would guess they rather voted no, even though they should generally lean to the left)
2. Tourism areas (the coast north of Burgas)

The Svishtov result comes at a surprise, considering it is just some 10 km west of Belene, and should economically benefit from the construction. Maybe they are afraid of increasing heavy traffic through the town (might also be a factor in Ruse - is the Danube bridge still as crowded as it used to be?).
What about other communities that are close to the Danube downstream of Belene (Silvo Pole, Ivanovo, Tutrakan, Silistra)

[Franknburger]

Finding results by municipality is not easy, as they are not officially published. Sometimes local media report the results for their own province, but I had to calculate many of these results myself by adding up the individual precinct results. Which is not too difficult if we're talking about a small municipality of a few thousand, but it's an enormous task if it's a big one.

It is bad for big cities, but actually great if one wants to test specal assumptions. I have started to look up results in all villages / towns that are located directly at the Danube downstream from Belene. From West to East, that is whar I have got so far (yes vote, excluding invalid votes):

Svishtov                       53%  (took your figure - is it the municipality or the city proper?)
Vardim                         57%
Mechka                        55%
Karaorman /( Kumi Gradishte  - could not find figures, probably part of Ruse
Ruse City                        too many districts, not done yet
Marten                       47%
Sandrovo                    51%
Ryahovo                     56%
Tutrakan                     64%
Pozharevo                   48%
Dolno Ryahovo            49%
Garvan                       55%
Popina                        62%
Vetren                        58%
Aydemir                     55%
Silistra                         too many districts, not done yet


This starts to look like a pattern ...

As soon as you go a little bit inland, you get the following:

Novi Grad                  79%
Kriwina                       71%
Batin                         74%
Gorno Ablamovo         80%
Pirgovo                      63%
Bassarnovo                49.8%  
Slivo Pole                  73%  
Babovo                      63%
Golyamo Vranovo       60%
Brashlen                   60%
Tsar Zemuli               81%
Nova Cerna               79%
Malak Preslavets        70%
Sitovo                       80%
Svebarna                  79%
Kalipetrovo                68%

So this seems a very localised phenomenen. How popular is fishing in the region?

[Franknburger]

As you can apparently read Cyrillic, here is a map of the municipalities in Bulgaria.

Thanks - but "reading" is actually a bit of an overstatement. I would say I can deccypher Cyrillic.

O.k, so what do we have so far:

"No" vote tends to be higher in:

• Major cities: Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Ruse, Stara Zagora? Pleven probably not.
• Coal power plant areas: Maritsaa-Istok (what about others?)
• Towns / villages directly on the Danube downstream of Belene (fishing may be an issue here)

Not conclusive are results yet for

• Tourism areas (I am working on it on a town / village level)
• Coal mining areas (at least that is my take-away from the figures in your last post, correct me if I am wrong)

Local wind power generation did not lead to increased "no votes".

From your comments, I sense that party allegiance tends in several cases to have been overriden by other of the above factors, but I may be misinterpreting you here.

Two things that might still be interesting is:

• Students' vote (provided there are any larger universities outside the main cities)
• a look on the Turkish minority vote on village / municipality level rather than just by province.

As I have no idea on where universities and the Turkish minority are located, this would have to be done by you, if you feel like it.

[Franknburger]

The correlation with large cities seems very strong (except Pleven, which voted 70.3%, for "yes").
I haven't checked the exact date, but even the cities where the "yes" vote was high, had notably lower percentages than the surrounding areas. This seems to the general electoral pattern as well.
Stara Zagora voted 54.5% yes, so it fits as well.

Your municipality map indicates that even several medium-sized cities like Shumen, Dobrich, Yambol, Gabrovo and Blagoegrad had a quite low "yes" vote..

Not conclusive are results yet for

• Tourism areas (I am working on it on a town / village level)
• Coal mining areas (at least that is my take-away from the figures in your last post, correct me if I am wrong)

I think so as well. Incidentally, the coal mined around Radnevo is lignite, used in coal-fired plants, while the one mined in western Bulgaria is mostly brown coal.

I now have the figures for all seaside towns/villages in Burgas Province, which are pretty conclusive. The whole cost (Burgas municipality excluded, as it is a different story) voted  53% yes:

Rezovo           48%
Sinemorets      39%  
Ahtopol           61%
Tsarevo           61%
Kiten                48%
Primorsko        55%
Sosopol           51%
Atyia               57%
Chernomorets  48%
Pomorie           51%
Aheloy             60%
Rawda             42%
Nesebar           46%
Sveti Vlas         54%
Obsor               63%

It is pretty obvious that the tourist locations, and especially those that strongly rely on foreign tourists (Sosopol, Pomorie, Nesebar), barely supported or even opposed Belene. Do you have figures for major inland destinations (Rila, Veliko Tarnovo, Borovets) at hand?

Two things that might still be interesting is:

• Students' vote (provided there are any larger universities outside the main cities)
• a look on the Turkish minority vote on village / municipality level rather than just by province.

As I have no idea on where universities and the Turkish minority are located, this would have to be done by you, if you feel like it.

Turkish municipalities voted "yes" by a huge margin (see map here) and so did those Pomak areas which support the MRF. Considering that Borisov is quite unpopular among them, voting against him on this referendum was probably a protest vote.

Yeah, comparing yes votes with the minority map is quite convincing.

On your municipalities map (great work, btw!), I noted six municipalities that voted "no". Three are within Sofia (the larger southeastern one, is that including Pancharevo and the Embassy quarter?) What are these municipalities like?

Then there is Radnevo (coal mining & power generation) in the south-central part of Bulgaria. What about the other two  one a bit south-east of Sofia, the other one along the Turkish border?

Also, any idea why Bulgarian Mazedonians were comparatively less entusiastic on the Belene project?

[Franknburger]

• Coal power plant areas: Maritsa-Istok (what about others?)

The second largest is in Beloslav municipality, near Varna which voted 55.5% "yes". The third largest is in Bobov dol and there are also large ones near Sofia and Pernik. So the rule doesn't seem to hold up very well. Then again, the Maritsa Istok complex is old, polluting and will probably be among the first to go if it ever comes down to closing unnecessary power plants. And without the power plants, the coal mines there will probably have to close as well - their current purpose is to provide coal for the plants. That is probably not the case in the coal regions in western Bulgaria.

I have some more coal area figures:

Bobov dol town  (coal mine & power plant)       64
Babino (coalmine, Bobov dol municipality)        40
Mamlovo (coalmine, Bobov dol municipality)     73
Katrishte coalfield, Kjustendil municipality        75
Gabra (coalmine, Erin Pelin municipality           53

The other coalmines I came across in my internet research are in Bojchinowzi municipality, Montana province, which according to your map voted over 70% yes, and in a Turkish minority area in southwestern Shumen province (also > 70% yes, but that may be due to the Turkish vote).

A pretty obscure picture - some coal areas voted quite strongly against Belene, while others either did not care or, possibly, even would be happy if the mine closed rather sooner than later (e.g. Katrishte, which is open pit and has recently been privatised). It is also interesting that of the two coal mining towns near Bobov dol, one - to the southwest - voted "no", while the other - to the southeast - voted strongly "yes". Am I right to suppose that winds are primarily blowing from the norht-west?