2013 Bulgarian referendum on nuclear energy

[Franzl]

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

[GMantis]

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

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

[Zanas]

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

[GMantis]

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

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

[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!

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

That was my main concern, considering the current reality.

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued below

[GMantis]

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

[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.

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?

[GMantis]

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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 .....

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued below.

[GMantis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[GMantis]

[

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GMantis]

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

[Tender Branson]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

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

[GMantis]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

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

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

[Tender Branson]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

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

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

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

[GMantis]

I find that funny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Are there like 1 million Bulgarians abroad also included ?

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

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

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

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

[GMantis]

Exit polls show about 60% voted yes, which seems close to the few polls made before the referendum. The distribution seem to be similar to national elections - older and rural voters have voted with a greater margin, similar to how they usually vote for BSP, the main supporter of the "yes" side. Conversely urban and younger voters, who lean towards rightists parties - opponents of Belene, have voted yes by a much smaller margin (though even in Sofia the "yes" side apparently won). Ethnic minorities have practically ignored the referendum, though the few MRF voters, the Turkish ethnic party, voted "yes "by a large margin.

[Simfan34]

3,400 MW is very, very small in the scheme of things. I don't know the numbers but I'm sure Bulgaria's consumption is many times that.

It's very hard to advocate a green energy program if the major energy sources- nuclear and hydroelectric- are slandered as being dangerous, while wind, solar, and etc are deemed to be degrading to local biospheres. Something's got to give- we need to put people first.

[GMantis]

3,400 MW is very, very small in the scheme of things. I don't know the numbers but I'm sure Bulgaria's consumption is many times that.

The two current nuclear reactors in Bulgaria have about the same power and they produce about 35% of Bulgaria's electricity.

It's very hard to advocate a green energy program if the major energy sources- nuclear and hydroelectric- are slandered as being dangerous, while wind, solar, and etc are deemed to be degrading to local biospheres. Something's got to give- we need to put people first.

The main problems with wind and solar are really the fact that they're strongly depended on external factors, which means they can rarely reach their full capacity.

[Zanas]

Something's got to give- we need to put people first.

Weeeeeeell, no. You need to put the environment AND the people first, ex aequo. Without a livable environment, there is no people you know. So that's why we need to collectively massively reduce our energy spendings.