Do we need the Belene NPP?

Author: Natalie Hristova

Why are we even bothering with the Belene NPP when we can neither finance it nor need the electricity? Moreover, it is doubtful how much the EU will allow it, especially considering the use of old Russian technology in a seismic region and the lack of diversification in the crucial energy sector.

At first glance, there are two warning lights of doubts related to the candidacy for finding a strategic partner for the financing and implementation of the Belene NPP project. In addition to the noise surrounding the Russian Rosatom, which is difficult to ignore in the media space, there is a candidacy from a ladybug in the person of "IPK and UP Bulgaria" EOOD. This company, according to an investigation by Dnevnik, was established in 2015 with the significant capital of 2 leva, with people with Ukrainian surnames on the board of directors, and the stated scope of activity is "project management, market research, trade in petroleum products, etc." Extremely specific, I like it. And while I like this quite ironically, I really do not like the fact that Bulgarian companies with the capacity to finance the project, such as ET "Gotse Arkharov - Sir 1957", are not applying. This is the first warning light of doubt for me.

A second observation is based on Borisov's changed opinion that Belene is a profitable project, even though 10 years ago he had called it, quote, "a goal". [1] And I like that, there is a gradation in the development of the Belene saga, but the question here is what makes Borisov change his opinion on Belene within seven years and what are the reasons for this?

Why would we want to build the Belene NPP?

As of 2014, 11% of the world's energy production comes from nuclear sources, while 39% of the world's energy is produced by burning coal. In order to successfully combat climate change, environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources and increasing our energy needs, countries around the world are striving to replace dependence on natural resources with so-called "green" energy sources. Nuclear power plants are also considered green energy. This is a strong argument in favor of Belene. But the management and maintenance of nuclear reactors as well as other critical components in a power plant are much more difficult and more expensive than any other source at the moment.

In addition, some of the largest and most developed plants are in China (Yangjiang, Nigde, Qinshan, Hongguang), Japan (Fukushima and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa), South Korea (Wolseong, Hanbit, Hanul, Kori), France (Paluel, Gravelin), Ukraine (Zaporizhia) and Bruce NPP in Canada. Among the above-mentioned countries, China, France and South Korea have submitted applications to be strategic investors, however, media and state attention is firmly focused on Rosatom. To clarify, so far no nuclear power plant without a state guarantee has been built in the world, which logically makes it impossible for Belene NPP to be a pioneer in this area.

At the same time, both President Radev and Prime Minister Borisov, during their visit to Tajikistan, expressed a desire to work with Russia, while other candidates were publicly ignored, and given the ranking of developed nuclear power plants, the trio of South Korea, China and France are strong candidates. It should be noted here that the EU would have objections to the Chinese economic offensive and would rather support the candidacy of another member of the union or South Korea, but doubts still remain about raising the topic with Belene and the relatively warm attitude towards Russia.

On top of that, Kozloduy NPP, which was built with 6 reactors, but currently only two are operating (5 & 6), reaches a capacity of 3760 megawatts according to Risk Engineering LTD, with whom I contacted these days. That is, Kozloduy NPP operates with two reactors with a capacity of over 3000 MW, and the project for Belene NPP is to build 2 reactors with a capacity of 2000 MW. The logic here escapes me and I ask: why is a project for old equipment from second generation nuclear reactors being financed, instead of financing Kozloduy NPP for renovation? Additionally, why do we need a nuclear power plant with a lower energy income and how is this an economically sound argument in favor of Belene NPP?

At the same time, let us recall that we are in a situation where, after the first project for the Belene NPP was suspended (which, by the way, was approved by the European Euratom, while the new project for Belene has not yet been) at the insistence of civil society and the GERB government in 2012, we paid the penalties for the equipment made for Belene under the contract with Atomstroyexport. These penalties amounted to 1.2/1.3 billion leva - the amount varies in different information sources - and were paid with a loan. This money was nevertheless paid by Bulgaria , or in other words, every Bulgarian taxpayer gave money to the Russian company. Now, not only have we paid the penalties, but we somehow want to work again with a Russian company to build the dubiously needed NPP, but this time it will not be Atomstroyexport, but it will be Atomenergoprom.

The EU's opinion?

The European Commission (EC) stresses that it attaches paramount importance to nuclear safety and the protection of citizens. The Commission recalls that after the Fukushima accident, European law was amended to ensure a higher level of nuclear safety, especially with regard to natural hazards, including earthquakes – and Belene is a particular seismic risk area. And an additional risk is the question of what to do with nuclear waste, which still raises unanswered questions both locally at the Kozloduy plant and at other European plants, with the most problematic epicenter in France. In other words, not only have we not settled the problem of nuclear waste, we do not have approval from Euratom, we do not have a state guarantee, as well as an economically viable one, but we want and are even giving political pressure to build a new nuclear power plant.

All this leads me to several questions, starting with who actually has an interest in the implementation of the Belene NPP project? That is, will Bulgarian citizens and taxpayers benefit from the project or will they rather be at a disadvantage? And also when would we have an economic analysis containing grounds for building another NPP as a reasonable solution based on needs and financial capacity exceeding, for example, the renovation of Kozloduy reactors and based on increased and uncovered energy needs? Answers to these questions, together with an analysis of the consequences of the possible construction of the plant in Belene, are, in my opinion, of priority importance, since the Belene NPP project is currently highly dependent on politics and is riddled with uncertainties regarding the risks associated with it. For example, the safety of the project and the natural resources near Belene, risks with possible consequences for people's health, as well as for the financial security and safety of taxpayers today and tomorrow.

[1] https://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2012/09/27/1914482_borisov_za_aec_belene_v_momenta_ima_edin_gyol_i/

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!