Bulgarian Politicians Slam German MEP over Nuclear Energy Report
Bulgaria’s President has reacted strongly to a report by a German MEP suggesting that Bulgaria build a nuclear waste facility with part of the EU nuclear decommissioning aid it is to receive.
She has argued that it should use EUR 120 M of the EUR 300 M it would get from the EU as additional compensations over the closure of four of the six reactors of the Kozloduy Nuclear Plant in order to build a nuclear waste storage place of its own rather than ship the nuclear waste to Russia.
“I would not agree in any case to this, we have an established mechanism for the transport and storage of used nuclear fuel,” said Bulgaria’s President Georgi Parvanov, who happens to be on a state visit to Brussels.
Bulgarian MEP from the European People’s Party, Vladimir Urutchev, who is an established nuclear energy expert, has stated that even though the German MEP Harms was right that Bulgaria did not have any facilities for the storage of nuclear waste, that issue was not presently on the agenda.
“These EUR 120 M are destined for the so called “non-nuclear window” of the compensations. The demands made by Harms in her report mean that this money will be blocked and it will be impossible to use it effectively,” Urutchev said cited by the BNR.
He has warned that if the German MEP had her way with the demands made in her report, this could give rise to voices in Bulgaria demanding the reboot of the four closed reactors in Kozloduy.
Bulgaria currently intends to use EUR 180 M from the EU decommissioning aid in order to finish the work on putting the four Soviet-era reactors out of exploitation, and to use the remaining EUR 120 M for various energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
Bulgarian Liberal MEP, Antoniya Parvanova, who is also a rapporteur on the same topic in the Environment Committee of the EP, said, as cited by the Dnevnik Daily, that the Greens MEP had no legal grounds for her demand, and that EUR 120 M would be too little to create a nuclear waste facility.
According to Bulgarian Socialist MEP and former Foreign Minister, Ivaylo Kalfin, the Bulgarian MEPs are going to propose a number of changes to Harms’s report in order to make sure the EUR 120 M in question will be channeled for green energy.
- » Conference on Long-term Sustainability and Innovation Infrastructures to Industry and Society
- » International Conference on the Future of Work
- » EU Presidency Puts Lagging Bulgarian Science in the Spotlight
- » The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) Executive Board Meeting
- » Fighting "Energy Poverty'' Will be Discussed Today at a Conference, Part of the Program of the Bulgarian EU Presidency
- » International Architecture Forum at the National Palace of Culture Dedicated to the Western Balkans
" Bulgarian Liberal MEP, Antoniya Parvanova, who is also a rapporteur
on the same topic in the Environment Committee of the EP, said, as
cited by the Dnevnik Daily, that the Greens MEP had no legal grounds
for her demand, and that EUR 120 M would be too little to create a
nuclear waste facility."
Parvanova knows nothing, yet she KNOWS that 120 million is not going
to be enough to dispose of nuclear waste safely. Actually, the most
environmentally responsible way to spend this money would be to find
ways and means to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner. This
bimbo Parvanova is an idiot.
Where to begin in this apparent game of Blind-man's bluff.
Firstly, no figures have yet been published of what kind of a return on the investment of all these Billions of leva, can be expected from the proposed horror-show at Belene.
Secondly, how much confidance could we put in any figures that were presented. No-one can be expected to have the faintest idea of the veracity of any such figures. Even less so than with those for "Windfarms", where the vendors will blythly quote several hundred % p.a. !! (swea.co.uk) Sadly for them they have come unstuck here, because these systems are really very quantifyable and analysable - and Visible, for sure !. It can be shown that current (80m high) "technology" is about 1/40 as cost-effective as a system which takes (mere) physical realities into account. Such systems have demonstrated that a few %p.a. is readily available, and more on a good site - coastal, for instance.
But they make such good window-dressing and keep "The Greens" feeling that they are making a litle headway beside this F******g obscenity proposed for Belene.
Bulgaria has massive sushine, and reasonably useful mountains for hydro and storage schemes. It needs nuclear power like a athlete needs rheumatism.
The only people benefitting from the current trend are of course Atomstroy, Rossatom etc, and e-on who will cast the yoke over us plebs to pay for this great thing that they have so kindly installed. And if it can't provide the energy that it said it could ? - no worries - there are plenty of taxpayers. But no matter how many taxpayers there are, Money will never be able to do what Energy does, because money is a "joke" compared to er electric, say, if you need a light.
Nuclear energy must be consigned to one of the biggest mistakes Mankind ever made, before it becomes the Gravest.