Skip to main content

Czeching in on the Nuclear State of the Republic

John Feffer provides an interesting history of nuclear energy in Eastern Europe. This seems a fair summary of what’s happening now:

Poland cancelled the four plants under construction in 1990 but has committed to building its first plant by 2022. Romania has added two units to its Cernavoda facility. Hungary has extended the lifespan of its Paks reactor by another 20 years. Only Bulgaria has bucked the trend by cancelling a second nuclear plant at Belene in 2012.

When they broke away from Soviet influence in the 90s, these countries were running nuclear reactors built by the Russians. That they were Russian  weighed against them and that they did not have European support (and thus had to be closed for these countries to join the European Union) really brought an end to them.

The Czech situation, as described by Feffer, is indicative of how attitudes changed as Soviet domination faded into memory:

The issue of nuclear energy has been particularly contentious in the Czech Republic. The plant at Temelin [an RBMK-1000], which was planned by the Communist government, originally had the same design as the one at Chernobyl. It was redesigned to meet EU specifications. But many Czechs, including Vaclav Havel, still voiced opposition. Public opinion fluctuated considerably, from 53 percent against in 1999 to 64 percent in favor in 2000. The Czech government pushed forward with construction plans, negotiating around Austria's objections. The Czech energy utility is currently dealing with bids for an expansion of the facility.

The whole thing is worth a read.

Feffer includes an interview he did with Vladimir Prchlik, a former Czech Environment Ministry official. Prchlik, among other things, reduced the amount of brown coal used in the Czech Republic by switching to nuclear energy. I found the discussion about tilting technology decisions east to west especially interesting – it’s like threading a nuclear needle:

There was also a big discussion about atomic power. The reactor at Temelin was only part of it. The plant was built with Soviet technology. We switched many of the components of the reactor to Westinghouse. It was very critical to combine Soviet technology with American technology. Nothing could be changed in the agreements with the Soviet Union. … So, this kind of work required a lot of diplomacy and not just technical knowledge. A lot of work was about modernizing and achieving greater efficiency.

One thing to worry about with nuclear energy in Europe has been Germany’s large role in the EU government. But, after some fuel rod rattling from that direction, Eastern Europe has made it clear it’s continuing with nuclear energy. 

Comments

Josef Riha said…
There is much nonsense in the article. Temelin NPP has never been designed with RBMK reactors. Since the very begin there were planned construction of four VVER-1000 reactors (PWR type). Later in the 90th Czech government decided to construct only two reactors. The Westinghouse' participation contributed with I&C system+fuel (in 2009 the WEC fuel was replaced by Russian fuel). Replacement of parts of Russian reactor technology by Westinghouse's ones is an engineering nonsense.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …