2013 Bulgarian referendum on nuclear energy

[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 ...

[GMantis]

[

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.

Why are you irritated? I have only made some logical conclusions from the data available. I think I was the one who should have been irritated, considering how you neglected to mention that the figures you gave for wind power capacity were only the potential capacity.
As for my figures for electricity from wind power, I gave you a source for this. And it's pretty clear that 0.8% from 41 TW works to about 8% from the theoretical 3.6 TW. Though I have to admit that I was indeed comparing apples with oranges - I was comparing the theoretical capacity of wind power with the actual power produced by both wind and solar. So it's probably less than 8% actually.
As for your assumptions, there is no reason to assume that the plant have actually been installed under the most optimal conditions. And your optimistic calculations do not far well under scrutiny, either. Comparing Bulgaria to the most simmilar countries, shows that 200 MW is a reasonable assumption (2.5 times less than Romania, which is also similar to the area ratio, for example). Also, even under the most optimistic assumption of 400 MW growth per year and nearly 20% power generation, it would take 11 years to produce the energy produced by even one reactor in Belene (which would have been opened in 2019, presuming the original plans) and using the more realistic 200 MW (though even that has been never achieved), 22 years. And that of course ignores diminishing returns due to decline of good places for wind power, so achieving those 20% might become more difficult with time even with better technology. So my estimation might not be far off.
Of course, this whole discussion is completely academical. With the failure of the referendum, it's pretty obvious that no nuclear power plant will be build. So we better hope that the climate will become windier in the future...

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 ...

Bulgaria's demand for natural gas would certainly not be enough to justify building a pipeline that is supposed to reach Western Europe.

[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).

[GMantis]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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

And is there one for Austria as well ?

[GMantis]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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 ?

[GMantis]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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 ?

[GMantis]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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 ...

[GMantis]

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 don't use Vista, so I can't be sure. But according to this page, it should be available.

[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?

[GMantis]

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 too for the debate, it was very informative.

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?

The light green coastal province is not just Varna of course, but the city constitutes over 70% of it's population. Considering that Varna is usually a stronghold for right-wing parties, it's probable that the "no" votes are mostly concentrated there. Most of the installed wind power seems to be in the province north of Varna, where it doesn't seem to have much of an effect. I checked the municipality which contains most installations (Kavarna) and it voted 64.4% yes.
The other province is indeed Ruse. This one is also dominated by its main city (64%), though Ruse is generally not as right-wing as Varna.

[GMantis]

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).

[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)

[GMantis]

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)

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. Sometimes you can download all precinct result on one page, but that's not available at the moment. But if I'm able to obtain some of these, I'll try to post them later

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?).

As I mentioned, they probably still remember that earthquake in 1977 and were concerned about safety issues. Plus, their mayor is from GERB and campaigned passionately against the Belene plant. On the other hand, a new plant would be good for the economy of the region, which is probably why the yes vote did prevail in the end (though of course as everywhere many opponents simply didn't vote).
As for Ruse, it's a large city and for various reasons (larger youth vote, less supporters of BSP, more supporters of right-wing parties, more support for environmental protection) these had a far lower support for the referendum. I don't think it had anything to do with the bridge.
Incidentally, I actually remember that wasn't very used before Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU. In fact, a blog post from 2003 claimed it was nearly deserted.

[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?

[GMantis]

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)

Now that full results are available in text format, I can calculate these far easier. As you can apparently read Cyrillic, here is a map of the municipalities in Bulgaria.

1. Some of the most important coal mines are in the above mentioned Radnevo. Some others:
Bobov dol      61.1%
Galabovo       55% (it's adjacent to Radnevo and contains part of the Maritsa Iztok power plants)
Simitli             60.9%
Pernik            62.1% (but since Pernik is a much bigger city, coal mining is not as important for the local economy.)
Most coal mining areas seem to lean towards BSP, but not nearly as much as rural areas.


2. The coastal municipalities, from south to north:
Tsarevo         60%
Primorsko      55.3%
Sozopol         55.6%
Burgas           51.5% (the city itself is 51.1%)
Pomorie         56.7%
Nesebar         56%
Byala              67.8%
Dolni Chiflik*    65.2%
Avren*             55.4%
Varna             52.1%
Aksakovo*       55.6%
Balchik            65.3%
Kavarna          64.4%
Shabla*            64.8%

Municipalities marked with * are those where tourism is not as important or well developed as the others.

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?

The result for Svishtov is for the city itself. The city of Ruse voted 54.1% "yes", while Silistra voted 59% "yes", so this seems to be one of the few cases where the large cities have higher results than the rural areas. And since fishing is indeed popular in the villages along the Danube, this might indeed be an explanation for the results.

[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.

[GMantis]

Here is a map of the results by municipality:

[GMantis]

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)

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.

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.

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.

Certainly in Pleven province. And to an extent in the Maritsa Coal Region.

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.
Regarding students, the Sofia district of Studentski Grad, where the campuses of nearly all universities in Sofia are located, voted 56.6% "yes", higher than the Sofia average. One must be cautious in drawing conclusions from this however, as turnout was probably not very high among students. Then again, students (or at least those studying scientific disciplines) may well be more sympathetic to the building of a nuclear plant than the average younger people.

[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?

[GMantis]

• 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.

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..

Yes, the general electoral pattern is that there is a almost linear correlation between size of a settlement and its support of right-wing parties. It's not surprising that you noticed Yambil and Dobrich, as their municipalities contain only the cities itself, while the surrounding villages are in a separate municipality, so the contrast is particularly clear.  Gabrovo has been always very right-wing for its size, probably for historical reasons.

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?

No one lives in Borovets, but one of the other major ski resorts, Bansko, had 54.3% "yes" votes. Chepelare, another ski resort, also had the relatively low 52.42%. So your theory seems to be lining up well with the facts.

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?

Sofia is not actually divided into municipalities, it's just one big municipality. It's divided into 24 districts (Plovdiv and Varna are also divided into districts). Here's a bigger map to see it more clearly:



The big one in the southeast is Pancharevo and it includes only villages, but it has undergone some influx of wealthy suburbanites, and wealthier people seem to have been in general opposed to the building of the plant. I checked the figures for the individual settlements and since villages closer to Sofia voted against and those further away voted for, this seems to be the most likely explanation.

The three central districts, apart from being moderately wealthy, are also disproportion ally populated by "old Sofians", people whose ancestors lived here before the Communists came to power and the city grew many times. These people tend to have a very negative view of Communists or what they perceive to be Communists. For many of them, Belene being built by a Russian company would probably be enough to get them to vote against it.

The western district that voted "no" was Bankya, Borisov's hometown.

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?

The one to the south of Sofia is Dolna Banya, a small spa town. Before 2009 it seemed not to lean towards any party, when it quite surprisingly became Borisov's best municipality, even better than Bankya. So it's logical they would support his position now as well. I can't really explain why it would support him so strongly, though. I suspect that this might be a case of what is euphemistically called the "company vote" - a powerful boss who controls the local economics gets the voters to turn out for the candidate he supports.

The third municipality that voted no, Lybimets, is a bit of mystery for me. It has only a small town and several villages, it has no power plants, it's not much of a tourist attraction and it's not a GERB stronghold.

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

What do you mean under Bulgarian Macedonians? If you mean ethnic Macedonians, they are hardly any in Bulgaria. The inhabitants of the Bulgarian part of Macedonia (which has almost the same territory as Blagoevgrad province) do have a regional identity as Macedonians, but they identify as Bulgarians (except the Pomaks).

I don't think that they were comparatively less enthusiastic. Blagoevgrad itself like other large towns had lower percentages for "yes" but most of the other municipalities had higher percentages for "yes" than the average for the country (I'm not counting the Pomak dominated areas in the western part of the province). The exceptions are Bansko and Razlog, which might be due to tourist issues.