Feed / Bookmark

Share/Save/Bookmark

Subscribe

« Nuclear News for January 8th 2009 | Main | Nuclear News for January 8th 2009 »

Bulgaria and Slovakia restarting reactors: living in the past

 

In the face of the Russia-Ukraine dispute over gas supplies, Bulgaria and Slovakia have come up with a novel solution to plummeting winter temperatures: reopen their mothballed and closed nuclear reactors.

Now, for several reasons, this is a very strange thing to do when people in those countries are worried about heating their homes and cooking their food.

Nuclear power, as we all know, is used for generating electricity. In Slovakia only about 10 per cent of its gas imports are used for electricity generation (as a by-product of central heating cogeneration not power stations) with the rest used for cooking and heating. Restarting the country’s nuclear reactors is not going to suddenly allow its citizens to have warm houses and hot food.

In Bulgaria only 4 per cent of electricity is generated by gas and only then in times of large demand. Restarting reactors 3 and 4 at Kozloduy would actually produce electricity for which there is no demand. In short, those two reactors are redundant – restarting them is an empty gesture. This is summed up by this from The London Times:

As the floodlights go off on important landmarks and gas-powered taxis are forced off the road, Bulgaria is demanding the right to crank up one of its Soviet-era nuclear reactors.

Switching Soviet-era nuclear reactors puts gas-powered taxis back on the road how exactly?

There’s also a question of swapping one monopoly for another. Slovakia and Bulgaria want to free themselves of Russia’s domination over gas supplies. And yet Russia is one of the world’s biggest suppliers of uranium (indeed, Slovakian reactors are entirely dependent on Russian uranium). With the demand for uranium set to quickly grow should the nuclear ‘renaissance’ take off, these countries face the same problems of politics and scarcity in the not too distant future.

The reactors in both countries would also take time to restart – we’re talking months for the required refuelling and safety checks. Also the reactors were closed as part of the deals made when both Bulgaria and Slovakia joined the EU. Restarting the reactors puts both countries in violation of EU treaties.

The alternatives are far simpler than jump-starting nuclear reactors. Energy efficiency is the obvious one with gas being used predominantly for heating in both countries. It’s quick, it’s cheap and it works. As a recent study in the Czech Republic discovered, the reduction in gas usage can be up to 60 per cent if thermal insulation of buildings is done properly.

It seems that the proponents and supporters of nuclear power in Slovakia and Bulgaria are using the current crisis to further their own interests. It’s naked and dangerous opportunism. It also smacks of politicians trying to save face. The fact that the two governments haven’t used the time since these reactors closed to diversify their energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biomass, etc.) shows a negligent lack of planning and regard for their citizens. Restarting their nuclear reactors is thinking of the past not the future and does not make amends.

Comments

Ahoj Justin - small remark - Slovakia and Bulgaria are not depending so much on Russian uranium as on Russian nuclear fuel. The uranium largely comes from other countries but is turned into fuel rods by TVEL, the Russian nuclear fuel company.

There is a big difference beeing dependent on enriched uranium fuel from
Russia and beeing dependent on gas. It is not long ago that Russian reduced the gas supply and the consequences are already felt. This would not be the situation if Russia cut of supply on uranium. Uranium is infinitely more powerful per kilo then gas. You could stockpile years worth of enriched uranium - easily. There would be more then enough time to find a new uranium source in the case of a squeeze from the Russians.

You also mention that the easiest solution would be to insulating the houses. For me this is just like the quote. "If they are starving why don't they just eat cake".

The old reactors are kept ready for situations like these. No need for jump starting, it's not a car. One month is all that is needed. I think if the people are freezing it's more likely that they have the money to buy a cheep electrical heater then to insulate their houses..

Hi Jostein,

no it is not like "if they are starving why don't they eat cake".
It is the cheapest and the most climate friendly way to heat your home. A good insulation would mean significant cuts on your energy bill, and a quick start to fight climate change. It is more like "The ant and the grasshopper". It is about being prepared.

Post a comment

(Comments are moderated. Thanks for waiting.)