Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy’s Sweep of Eastern Europe

Sounds like nuclear heaven:

… Hungarians throughout the country [of Hungary – go figure] are still positive about nuclear energy. There has never been a significant anti-nuclear movement. Even politicians, deeply divided about everything else, have reached a broad consensus on energy issues and want to see an expansion of nuclear power. Hungary wants to modernize the four units in Paks to extend their lifespan - and probably build two new ones beside them.'

And heaven is a place on Earth:

Hungary is part of a trend in the region. From the Baltics to Bulgaria, almost all countries are planning a nuclear future. Lithuania and Poland are considering building new plants in spite of significant popular opposition to nuclear power. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, there are concrete plans for new reactors, supported by the majority.

Interestingly, the countries with public opposition have never had nuclear energy facilities (Poland) or depended on Soviet RBMK reactors (Lithuania), which the European Union pressured the country to retire.

The Visaginas project is still in play in Lithuania (it looked like it might be stopped after a change in government but was not) . The outcome of closing the Ignalina facility was that it turned Lithuania from a net electricity exporter to a net importer, not a great development for a small country.

The story enumerates other Eastern European countries that have or want nuclear energy projects – Romania and Bulgaria specifically – so the sweep of that part of the world is just about complete. All this attention originates here:

Early last week (14.10.2013), the prime ministers of the Visegrad countries - Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary [Visegrad is a coalition of these nations] - confirmed their pro-nuclear stance and called on the European Union not to enact a nuclear energy directive. They said that the choice of primary energy sources a country uses should not be decided in Brussels.

Probably because the EU has a strong German voice and we know how the Germans feel about nuclear energy these days.

It’s amusing to see this indirectly addressed:

One student, 21-year-old Peter Racz, born and raised in the city [Paks, Hungary] and whose grandmother and parents worked at the nuclear plant, would like to continue the tradition. He has just completed a welding course, and next year he wants to study engineering. He hopes this will help him get a skilled job at the plant.

Racz cannot understand why the majority of Germans do not like nuclear energy. "This technology will always be used, it is safe and provides many jobs," he says. "Do the Germans have any other ideas about how to secure their energy supply? I think there is no better solution than nuclear power."

Score one for the Hungarian kid.

---

When I travelled through Eastern Europe some years ago (East Germany, then-Czechoslovakia and Hungary), filthy air was the first thing I noticed (well, after stuffing West German marks in my socks to avoid losing them to the hard currency-starved east). Not only because it turned Budapest into London 1900 (pollution so thick it sometimes resembled fog), but because black soot would attach to the skin and had to be scrubbed off. Obviously, the end of a Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe also ended, over time, its status as an environmental cesspool.

Nuclear energy was there then, too, so it could be considered a mitigating factor but not a determinative one in quelling pollution. Now, it can be part of a different solution – not only another way to produce electricity, but to continue clearing away toxic air.

Comments

Mike Walker said…
As I stated in my own blog (Science & History at Nuclear Street), Belarus noted very quickly how it depends on the whims of Russia and Gazprom for its energy supply—and went to nuclear to make itself independent. That's what we're seeing more and more in Eastern Europe: the options are clear, either establish your own nuclear power basis or be at the mercy of whatever prices Gazprom wants to command for what comes down its pipeline.

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…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…