English Български
Follow Us
Search : [ ]

A memory or a future of "Second Nuclear"

Published on , , Sofia

Nuclear power station construction could cause furious political, economic and purely professional disputes among energy experts. It could cause the protests of environmentalists and the support of trade unions. But can it turn into a Gordian Knot of passions, demagogy and ideology for more than 20 years and to become one of the division lines of the whole so called Bulgarian transition?

It proved that the Belene nuclear power station project is exactly this. There is no government from the transition period which did not deal with the project's fate, which did not put the project to public discussions in essence - about the actual economic needs and benefits, but not those that were relevant 30 years ago but those that will be in 30 years. Belene became a symbol of division between blues and reds (democrats and socialists), right and left, young and old, between environmentalists and energy experts, Russophiles and Russophobes.

Today, almost 30 years after the first "first dig"* at the site of the station everyone seems to have forgotten what was the dispute about. This is why we go back to the beginning when 7 thousand workers start the construction of the site of the "Second Nuclear". It was a time when nobody could foresee that the construction will be frozen for years ahead and 4 out of the 6 reactors of the first nuclear Kozloduy will be closed.

This period - the beginning of the 80-s of the last century - the energy experts remember with tenderness. They talk about the enthusiasm, the professional ambitions, the big plans how the new station would produce enough electricity for the industry. According to Stamen Stamenov, former director of the Investment Control Directorate at Kozloduy nuclear station, the decisive motive for the beginning of the construction of Belene was the growing need of electricity:

"Energy infrastructure is coping well in the last 20 years only because the industry collapsed and the consumption of electricity dropped. Otherwise until 1989-1990 it was often in extreme conditions when the households started to consume more, the energy system to be on the brink of collapsing".

Petar Simeonov is the man who broke the bottle of champagne at the first "first dig" at Belene. He is a former Project Director and a member of the 40th National Parliament, elected from the lists of the socialists. He remembers how after a government decision in 1980, in 1981 the construction work began. More than 7 thousand people and 40 enterprises worked on the site. According to the agreement with the Russians, initially two 1,000 MW reactors were to be built and the capacity of the site was to house another four reactors.

The first three years were dedicated to building the construction-installation base. Later, the first legends about the radioactive danger coming from the station started to circulate, Stamen Stamenov remembers:

"We were invited to clarify to the local population that after all this is a normal enterprise, where normal people work. At the gathering a woman said: "Because of this nuclear power station each fruit from my plum were twins". But there was no nuclear power station back then - it was only concrete and iron".

According to Petar Simeonov the legend of the seismographic activity of the region is also not true. He remembers that the Vrancha earthquake did not cause any damages on the site. That there were no data of increased seismic activity in the region is written in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, ordered by the National Electricity Company:

"The seismic activity in the local area surrounding the nuclear power station Belene is thoroughly examined. In the 30 km zone of Belene there are no indications of earthquakes with intensity stronger than 2.5 ... . From the point of view of the seismotectonic and seismic risk there are no conditions that could prevent the usage of Belene", the report says.

According to Stamen Stamenov, the seismic argument is unsubstantiated in general - in Japan there are nuclear power stations in far more seismic regions. Everything is a matter of construction calculations, he says.

Nevertheless, in the beginning of 1990 a political decision is taken the work on the station to stop. According to Stamen Stamenov,

"many people who wanted to become mayors or members of parliament wanted to show how much they cared about health, safety and life of people and they created this feeling that the future is mutations, death ... . There was a very strong campaign".

200-250 people remain at the site with the task to preserve what was built by then at the cost of $1.2 bn in the form of raw materials, facilities and the equipment for the first reactor, Petar Simeonov is telling us.

In 2002 the government of the former tzar and leader of the NDSV party Simeon Saxecobourgghotta unfroze the Belene project and in 2006 Atomstroyexport was chosen to complete the construction. The price is almost 4 bn euro. Against which the Russian company must build 2 1,000 MW reactors. After the initial inspiration - again silence and calm.

The government of Stanishev has a great guilt for the delay, Petar Simeonov thinks. For the last 4 years he was a member of parliament from the group of the socialists whose leader Stanishev is. Stanishev makes the "newspaper" first dig but the work on the project again stopped, Simeonov says. There is no explanation why, especially given the fact that the Russians generously offered to finance the project with a loan. Several days ago the ruling party GERB announced that it will accept 2 bn euro Russian funding until a new strategic investor is found for the project after RWE withdrew.

Both Stamenov and Simeonov firmly disagree with the idea that it is cheaper to build new reactors in the Kozloduy nuclear power station than to build Belene. They say that research and planning of a possible 7th reactor at Kozloduy will take years while the Belene projects are ready. The 2,704 decare site is ready, a great part of the infrastructure too, so if in the end of the year the construction works could resume, the station would be ready in 4-5 years. And regarding the dependence from Russia, both men do not see a problem with Russia's funding. They say that the Russians are interested in benefiting from the project, they are not building a monument. Of course they have economic interests otherwise no one would throw away so much money for political purposes only, the experts think.

Nevertheless they do not exclude geopolitical pressure because of the big money and the many criss-crossing interests. They say the allegations that the reactors can work with Russian fuel only are not true - the fuel could be ordered from anywhere, it's just a matter of a price and negotiations. They also don't see a problem in Russia reprocessing the fuel, nor a reason Bulgaria to invest in a depository. The experts do not believe the tales that the project has become more expensive and reached a price of 10 bn euro because of the delay. They say that the project is good technically and economically.

While I was listening to the people who laid the foundations of the Belene nuclear power station I was wondering why politicians cannot defend the project with the same passion and conviction? Even when they say that it is profitable and lucrative they sound as if they don't believe this themselves. And this is probably true since there is no concrete information, no details of how the project will develop further, how the ownership issues will be solved, who will buy the electricity from it and at what price. The experts might have the answers but politicians - obviously not. This is why 30 years later Belene is still a project. And unless politicians give clear answers what Belene is for Bulgaria, today and 30 years later the "Second Nuclear" continues to be the dream of a generation and the shame of another. And to divide us.

Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace
5 March 2010 10:31
Mr. Stamenov has either a very selective memory or is so caught up in an ideological dream world that he distorts reality. The 1977 Vrancha earthquake killed 120 people in Svishtov, which is 13 km from the Belene site (well inside the 30 km zone). It also caused considerable damage in Belene and Nikopol. Of course not on the Belene site, because there was no Belene site in 1977. The EIA study was soundly tweaked into giving the picture Mr. Stamenov is painting here. The basis for that study is more extensively given in the "White Book" of the Bulgarian Academy of Science from 1990. And comes to the conclusion that Belene is not a suitable site, as did Russian engineers in the 1980s.


Mr. Stamenov also conveniently forgets that the 2007 earthquake in Japan closed down the 7 reactors of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa and only a month ago the second reactor was reconnected to the grid. Five reactors are still down, three years after the event.

The reason why the Stanishev government could not move forward is clear: a Russian loan with government guarantees would have constituted illegal state aid and distorted the electricity market. Mr. Stamenov obviously still lives in the past in which expenditure and income were completely unrelated budget issues.

Experiences with other than Russian fuel for Russian reactors have been bad in the past. Only a few years ago, Czech utility CEZ had to move for its fuel from US based Westinghouse to Russian TVEL (part of Rosatom, also owner of Atomstroyexport) because of problems with the Westinghouse fuel in the Temelin VVER 1000 reactors. Westinghouse then closed its production facility for VVER fuel.

The "experts"' remarks about nuclear waste are simply shocking. Reprocessing in Mayak (where the Bulgarian nuclear waste is going) is about the dirtiest nuclear activity in the world. For some impressions, look at:


or to the recent documentary "Déchets, le cauchemar du nucleaire" by French TV station ARTE


That Bulgaria does not need a storage for nuclear waste is maybe the ultimate show of the irresponsibility of the nuclear generation of mr. Stamenov. Kozloduy is producing high radioactive waste, sending to Russia equals to wiping it under the carpet. As soon as we have to hand over this planet to the next generation, we'll have to clean up - or we'll leave those next generations with the problems and the enormous costs. Contractually, Russia will send back the results of reprocessing in the future. That will have to be stored, and there is no facility for that yet.

These experts have no answers whatsoever. They are caught in an outdated dream from the 1950s, blind for the problems they have caused on the way and uninformed about the real alternatives.

The only point where mr. Stamenov is right, is that new nuclear reactors in Kozloduy will not be that much cheaper than in Belene because of already present infrastructure. Currently, construction costs for all offered new nuclear projects in the US, Canada, France, UK, Finland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and others tower to 5000 EUR / kW installed capacity - and one project after another falls into the same fate as Belene because of that. 5000 EUR/kWe means they will deliver roughly double the electricity market prices we see today. Alternatives like efficiency and renewable energy sources continue to sink in price and wind, biomass, geothermal and concentrated solar heat now already compete with the conventional sources.
By the way - the "price" for Belene of 4 Billion Euro is not the full construction price. It is widely acknowledged nowadays, even by the Bulgarian government, that the total construction price will hit 10 Billion Euro. Atomstroyexport already indicated that its part will probably cost 6 Billion Euro.

That Belene could be ready within 4 to 5 years is another wet dream of an old generation. The AES-92 will be a first-of-a-kind in the European Union. The only two existing nuclear construction projects in the EU show what that means. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland suffers doubling costs and doubling construction time. France's Flamanville suffers the same problems. During construction a lot needs to be learned to make these projects safe. That takes time. It takes improvements. Added to that the construction Babylon of Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Ukrainian, the odd Bulgarian, French, German and other nationalities, it is unlikely Belene can be build faster than Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. That is 7 to 8 years... and attached cost overruns.

Bulgaria has a wealth to win by becoming more energy efficient. Bulgaria has an incredible potential for renewable energy sources like wind, micro-hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal. This will bring Bulgaria real energy security as well as help it meeting its climate targets. It is high time for politicians to move away from the 20th century experts and paradigms and start to develop policy on the basis of 21st century technologies. Nuclear is not one of them.
If you have a comment, please post it here.
The field 'Nick' is not required. If you leave it blank, your comment will be named with 'anonymous' author. However you are welcome to register on our site and participate in our comments with your user name.