Croatian Daily Explores Possibilities for New Nuclear Power Plants

Text of report by Croatian newspaper Vjesnik website on 8 March

[Article by Zeljko Buksa: "Return of Nuclear Power Plants?"]

The recent statements by Damir Polancec, deputy prime minister and minister of economy, labour, and entrepreneurship, and by Stjepan Mesic, president of the Republic, indicate that the time when politicians and the public saw nuclear power plants primarily as potentially dangerous facilities and regularly opposed their construction had passed. First Polancec said that the time may have come for a possible construction of a nuclear power plant in Croatia not to be seen as a bogey, and then Mesic remarked that, in considering Croatia’s energy needs in the foreseeable future, a nuclear power plant would be inevitable. “Nuclear plants are safe now, and the energy is also the cleanest. This will become inevitable for us, as is the case with other countries that are already building nuclear power plants. Once we are ready for it, the technology will be even safer than it is now,” Mesic said.

Such statements are not surprising when one takes into account that enough time has passed since the disaster at Chernobyl, which was a result of unfathomable human error and poor Russian technology, and that the economic and energy situation have made us seriously consider a new nuclear power plant.

Consumption of electric power in Croatia increases by three to per cent per year, nearly twice as fast as in the EU, and several of the old HEP [Croatian Electricity Board] thermoelectric power plants will gradually be written off. This is why the HEP has already started a big investment cycle so as to avoid shortages of electric power in the future as well as dependence on import. In the next 10 years they are planning to invest over 33 billion kuna, over 30 per cent of which should be invested in big, mostly gas power plants, the power of which will exceed 1,300 MW (like two Krsko Nuclear Power Plants). Namely, crude oil is slowly being abandoned as fuel for electric power plants, and in Croatia the construction and even research into new nuclear power plants and thermoelectric power plants running on coal – the electric power plants that, in addition to hydroelectric power plants, produce the cheapest electric power – has been banned for some 10 years now, until the year 2015, in accordance with the political decision in the Urban Development Program. [sentence as published]

Since there is a number of reasons no country can allow itself to depend too much on one energy source – in this case, the increasingly popular natural gas – experts have been pointing out for years now that it was necessary to seriously consider diversifying energy sources as well as fuel for electric power plants. In that, one should bear in mind that hydroelectric power plants constitute about one half of the HEP production capacities, and that the majority of the locations suitable for the construction of those has already been used, while the others are mostly at border rivers, or else local communities and eco-associations have not agreed that they be constructed. Renewable energy sources, on the other hand, are quite unreliable and considerably more expensive than the classic energy sources, so the state has to provide subsidies.

Moreover, one should take into account that one of the basic preconditions for the desired speedy economic development and increase in the living standards is having sufficient quantities of energy that is as cheap as possible, as well as depending as little as possible on its import. Nuclear power plants are big, stable producers of considerably cheaper power than thermoelectric power plants. This is confirmed by the data showing that Croatia fulfils 17 per cent of its needs for electric power from its half of Krsko Nuclear Power Plant alone, as well as that one kWh from the nuclear power plant costs 3.5 cents at the most, while one kWh from thermoelectric power plants costs at least five or six cents. However strange that may seem, the positive influence of nuclear power plants on the environment should not be neglected either. Namely, experts have pointed out that, as opposed to thermoelectric power plants, they do not produce a large quantity of gases that promote global warming. This is why they would make it easier for Croatia to meet the strict obligations contained in the ratified Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012 by five per cent in relation to the base year 1990, and especially the expected stricter conditions that are to follow. Investment in such stable and big sources of cheap energy is also important because of the fact that, in view of increase in consumption and the increasing exhaustion of local sources, Croatia has to import increasing quantities of primary energy, said Zeljko Tomsic, assistant minister of economy, labor, and entrepreneurship.

According to him, we are already importing over 50 per cent of primary energy, which percentage will gradually increase and may increase to 75 to 80 per cent in 20 years. “This is why we cannot reject any energy options, including the nuclear one, all the more so as the European Commission has also recommended to all its members that they consider the option in view of increasing the supply security, energy independence, and ecological benefits,” Tomsic added. It is because of the huge benefits that it is no wonder that an increasing number of new nuclear power plants is being planned and constructed throughout the world in addition to the existing 440 reactors, and that increasingly modern technologies are being used.

Naturally, the number of opponents to nuclear power plants is still high. They emphasize, as their main disadvantage, the potential danger (in which they constantly point out the Chernobyl disaster, even though nothing of the kind has happened since), and the problems concerning permanent radioactive waste disposal. However, experts emphasize that technologies for long-term disposal following the prescribed safety criteria exist, and a number of countries have already built radioactive waste disposals, with which there have been no known problems.

Used nuclear fuel is kept within the electric power plants in pools containing boric acid solution (this exists in Krsko, too), until its radioactivity is partially reduced. Then it is stored in special containers in subterranean dumps, which, according to experts, already exist or will be built in the United States, Sweden, and Finland.

There is also the possibility of – within the framework of reprocessing, which the French are doing – taking part of plutonium and uranium out of the used up fuel, which are then re-used as fuel. The part that is stored separately as highly radioactive waste is also taken out, while the rest ends up with the other, less dangerous, low- and medium-radioactive waste, the experts explain. They also claim that, if modern technologies are used, nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as many believe. This is confirmed by the fact that no serious nuclear incident has taken place in 20 years or so. After all, foreign experts usually rate the Slovene- Croatian nuclear power plant in Krsko as among the top 25 in the world.

If Croatia decides to open the nuclear option within the framework of the new energy strategy, the proposal for which will be prepared in the fall, the ban on the construction of nuclear power plants will first have to be stricken from the Urban Development Programme.

Then the discussion will follow of whether, when, and where a new nuclear power plant will be built. In that one should bear in mind that, according to the data of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the countries that have no nuclear power plants the period from the government or parliament decision on its construction is between 13 and 17 years in view of the long and complex procedure. If the decision on its construction is made this year, it will only begin to operate after the year 2020.

For the time being, there is no decision on the construction of a nuclear power plant – instead, only the possibility of discussion of the issue has been announced, Tomsic emphasized. If the decision is made some time in the future that a nuclear power plant is necessary after all, the most sensitive part of the work will be determining the best locations for construction. In that, it will be necessary to observe the professional criteria that are common abroad. Since nuclear power plants need large quantities of water for cooling, the location would have to be in the Adriatic or by one of the major rivers — the Sava, the Drava, or the Danube.

This is why, some 20 years ago, when, after Krsko Nuclear Power Plant, the construction of another similar power plant was planned in Croatia, locations at Prevlaka on the Sava River, at Dalj and Erdut on the Danube River, and on the island of Vir were considered the most frequently. However, the regulations and the selection criteria have considerably changed in the meantime, and the entire procedure of selecting the location would have to be taken back to the beginning.

[Box] A 1,000 MW nuclear power plant – Two billion euros

Experts have proposed that, if Croatia decides to build a nuclear power plant, its power be around 1,000 MW (30 per cent higher than that of Krsko Nuclear Power Plant), which would make the overall investment about two billion euros. Investors could be found without any problems because there is a big interest among energy, financial, and other companies for such investment. Slovenia has announced that it would independently build a new nuclear power plant close to the shared Krsko Nuclear Power Plant. However, according to announcements, it is not planning to build on a shared location and therefore does not need the consent of the Croatian side.

Originally published by Vjesnik website, Zagreb, in Croatian 8 Mar 08.

(c) 2008 BBC Monitoring European. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.