EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Even before the referendum on the fate of nuclear power has been held, it feels like it will be remembered not so much for its outcome as for the fuss surrounding it. The focus has shifted to its technology and the ever-emerging procedural and legal messes.
The interest is not in the topic, but in its essence as a brand new surgical instrument, which will be used for the first time on a patient – the body of the so-called Bulgarian civil society.
There is nothing unusual about this, and the reasons are twofold: 1) this is our first referendum since 1989; 2) there are so many unproven hypotheses and unknown quantities surrounding its essence that the answers in its equation range from 7 billion to 20 billion – a possibility of error that would be unforgivable even for a first-grader. In other words, we do not know so much of the essentials that the only thing we can do is fuss over the details, and “fussing” is a crude way of saying that we are commenting on a process that is symptomatic of the effectiveness of the entire political system and our ability to make decisions in general.
However, to make a decision is also not quite the right expression. For those who vote in the referendum, the mass feeling is that they are not deciding, but guessing. And worse – they are gambling, in case the final outcome of the Belene case depends at all on the outcome of the referendum. The reason is the existing consensus that the Belene project actually has only one correct development, which is not so dependent on the overall public opinion. The question is not ideological or principled, but expert. The intricate equation for the price of the NPP is subject to solution, but through complex economic calculations and expert assessments. This is where the problem lies – impartiality. The figure for the future electricity bill varies depending on who orders the forecast – we have already mentioned that the discrepancies are not minimal at all. From the most skeptical point of view in this regard, the referendum is a kind of evasion of responsibility - if someone's forecast turns out to be painfully inaccurate, then whose problem is it, if not the careless voter who trusted the wrong source, ineptly read the latest report, incorrectly assessed his solvency and generally sabotaged his country's energy policy due to haste, ignorance and malice.
Of course, the taxpayer would fully deserve this fate if the information committees were not politicized, and the arguments for and against were not pre-election party-based. This is another problem that makes the first Bulgarian referendum not entirely abnormal. Who should declare themselves in support and who against, why them and what interest provokes them to have such a position? If there is a need for an impartial public opinion survey, should it be encouraged and modeled by information committees headed by party leaders?
A referendum should not be a political vote, and in a system like Bulgaria's, where referendums are clearly rare, this is difficult to guarantee. Another further complicating factor is that the referendum overlaps with the parliamentary election campaigns, and that both take place in the same year, while the Belene case has been on the political agenda long enough to know who is on whose side.
An important question is to what extent the voters in the referendum will vote according to political affiliation. It is possible that the result of the referendum will turn into a kind of and accurate sociological forecast for the election of parliament. Since some of us are not energy experts, it becomes necessary to trust the one who is in the know. However, when you do not have enough facts, you intuitively trust someone's judgment, which in this case is most likely the result not of an objective, but of a party point of view. The beginning of this harmful trend was set with the implementation of the petition, when the BSP proudly viewed those who participated in it as their possible voters in the parliamentary elections.
When a political instrument is used for the first time, it is quite normal that decisions regarding its implementation need to be made on the fly and the procedure needs to be improved during its preparation and implementation. We could not declare the Constitution or legislation that it needs more attention to unforeseen circumstances. However, the improvement process can be effective and fruitful only when there is no doubt that the measures taken and the changes made are in favor of one or the other side. However, many of the legislative texts regarding the conduct of the referendum refer to the electoral code, and the worrying thing is that trust in it is not high, suspicions of abuse and its suspicious "adjustment" to someone's interests are numerous. Accordingly, the vicious circle is turning again and this year we will have to listen twice to accusations of non-transparent and unregulated campaign financing, lost traces of parliamentary subsidies and open loopholes for their use for arbitrary spending. The first worrying case was the refusal of the Court of Accounts to monitor the financing of information committees. The dispute between the Court and the Central Election Commission (CEC), as expected, is in theory a consequence of different interpretations of the law.
The problems mentioned are unfortunately only touches on the main one, which has been repeatedly pointed out by analysts and journalists, namely – the question itself. Willingly or not, the most important distinction was neglected – between “I vote for the development of nuclear energy” and “I vote for the construction of a new nuclear power plant” and respectively “I vote against the development of nuclear energy” and “I vote against the construction of a new nuclear power plant”.
"1) this is our first referendum;" - This is the 4th referendum. 1922- to try the perpetrators of the first and Balkan wars; 1946-monarchy or republic; 1971-for a new constitution and the one about nuclear energy.
This is the fourth referendum. The first was in 1922, a referendum to try those responsible for national catastrophes; the second in 1946, a republic or monarchy; and the third in 1971, to approve a new, so-called Zhivkov constitution.
Thanks for the correction!
Let's read the text more carefully: "our first referendum after 1989..." everything is correct.
And now, after the "procedural" amendments, let's look at the substance of things! The question should be: hydro or nuclear energy! Wikipedia says that the "Tsankov Kamak" dam and its HPP will be: "...a quick reserve in the event of an emergency failure of large capacities (for example, the Kozloduy NPP and the Belene NPP under construction)..." end of quote! With all the balancing act with the construction of "Tsankov Kamak", it costs 450 million euros (one million euros went to the consultant Dogan - a flea bit us!) If the price of the Belene NPP varies from 7 to 20 billion, any second grader will calculate how many HPPs of the rank of "Tsankov Kamak" can be built with this money... If you think that Bulgaria's water resources are insufficient, there is another solution - the PWPP. I will simply recall its scheme of operation: two equalizers - an upper and lower basin, between them a HPP. During the day it works as a generator - it empties the upper into the lower and produces electricity, and at night it works as a pump, it raises the water from the lower into the upper. Additional "bonuses": at night the republican electrical system has no loads, electricity is cheaper, and water losses are only during the day from evaporation from the surface of the pools. For information: in small Switzerland over 1700 (!!!) such PARVs have been built... In our country there is only one - PARV "Chaira".
And what will you use to power these huge pumps that will pump all night, with photovoltaics, but the sun is not there, with wind generators, of course, but it is there now and then there is not. And what do we use to run the thermal power plants that spew out many times more s@n than radiation - but the thermal power plant does not start and stops because you feel like it for one night, the hydroelectric power plant does not work, they serve to balance the upper peaks in the load schedule, and Bulgaria is not one of the countries with the necessary water resources to build enough hydroelectric power plants, like some of the god-water-anointed countries you look at, which can take both the consumption in the evening and the pumps of the hydroelectric power plant
There is currently nothing better than a nuclear power plant to avoid having to rely on electricity during the winter because there is no sun, no wind, and you don't want to breathe the misery of thermal power plants.
Unfortunately, it has already been understood that the referendum will do nothing, starting with replacing the questions themselves, which now mean something completely different, and ending with His order to vote "no". So much for Boyko's democracy.
Not to mention that whoever completes the construction will be given everything that has been built so far, as happened with the ERP, they did not spend a penny of what was worth and was built during socialism in the country's energy transmission system.
Anyone who wants to can find information. I took the trouble to gather everything in one place. I tried to cite reports such as those of the IAEA, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the project consultants. There is clarity, for those who are looking, unfortunately I did not see a single link to information confirmed by the state among the opponents of Belene. Here is a link, for the attention of every Bulgarian citizen, who can see for themselves what this or that report says, directly with sources and quotes from them
http://tikvenik.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE-%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B1%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%88-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%86-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB/
Comprehensive, unbiased and useful material, thank you! I hope it reaches more people.
I'm not an expert. But more specific questions are probably unconstitutional: you can't ask about a specific project like whether to build a nuclear power plant or not. It depends on who "reads" the law. But otherwise I agree with the article, this referendum is pointless, misleading and will not lead to anything except a transfer of responsibility. I don't understand much about electricity apart from articles and a general interest in its specifics as a good. The people around me are even more ignorant, is there anyone who thinks that a nation can make the right decision. We could just as well toss a coin 🙂
My personal opinion is: If the project is so profitable, and if the region will vote "FOR" or at least that's what is being speculated on television, then let's find investors, establish a joint-stock company and sell shares. Let's not let the state intervene, so that we don't end up paying for electricity that we export at 0 stotinki, just so that we don't fry our infrastructure and appliances. The losses in our electricity transmission system are a much more serious problem.
Detailed, unbiased and useful material, thank you! I hope it reaches more people.
Often, overly specific questions are expert. In this case, the problem is not in the specifics, but in the fact that one answer is sought to two questions. And referendums are held on moral and principled guidelines for the development of society and the state. The one proposed to us is such from a foreign policy point of view, but it is placed in an inappropriate context. The question: "With Russia or with America?" is more suitable for a referendum in my personal opinion, despite all its absurdity.
Not only are two questions being answered. There is a very well-developed language game in the question: "Should it develop....", not "Is it necessary to develop...", etc. So instead of asking and expecting an answer to a clearly formulated question, through the question you are saying what will happen regardless of the answer. This is a performative expression; its purpose is not to describe a situation. The perlocutionary intention in this speech act is much stronger in intensity than the illocutionary one. All of this, of course, is according to J. Austin and may not have been thought of exactly in this way and with this purpose, but it is still one point of view on the language game contained in the question.