More

Czechs Bet Heavily On Nuclear Power

By KAREL JANICEK   10/ 8/11 04:44 AM ET   AP

DUKOVANY NUCLEAR PLANT, Czech Republic -- Surrounded by corn fields, bicycle routes and a nature reserve, the eight huge cooling towers of the Dukovany nuclear power plant have dominated the Czech countryside near the Austrian border for almost three decades.

Against the odds, the government has worked to keep it that way for many years to come.

Defying growing global skepticism over the use of atomic energy, it is planning to dramatically increase the country's nuclear power production – a move that would give the country a place among Europe's most nuclear-dependent nations.

The Czech plan reflects a sharp division over nuclear use among European nations, and relations with neighboring countries that have decided to go nuclear free could be seriously harmed.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government decided to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 following the March meltdown at Japan's Fukushima plant, and Switzerland has followed suit. Austria abandoned nuclear energy after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and strictly opposes the Czech nuclear program.

Other former Soviet bloc nations, now in the EU, are following the Czechs' lead on nuclear power – reflecting diverging economic needs between east and west.

Slovakia is currently building more nuclear facilities. And Poland has engaged in talks with French, U.S. and Japanese firms about know-how and technology for its first nuclear installation to be completed by 2030.

The Czechs argue nuclear energy is needed because it is a clean and cost efficient source.

They currently rely on six nuclear reactors – four 440-megawatt reactors in Dukovany and two 1,000-megawatt reactors at another plant in Temelin located an hour's drive north of the Austrian border – for 33 percent of their total electricity. The government hopes to at least double that output.

"We consider increasing electricity production in nuclear plants from some 30 percent to about 60 percent by 2050," Deputy Industry and Trade Minister Tomas Huner told the Associated Press.

"We have been mining uranium and there's no doubt nuclear energy is irreplaceable for us in the long term," said Huner, whose ministry has to present the new energy overhaul for the next 50 years to the government by year's end.

A trio of big players – U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co., a subsidiary of Japan's Toshiba Corp., France's state-owned nuclear engineering giant Areva SA and a consortium led by Russia's Atomstroyexport – are already bidding to win a lucrative multibillion tender to build two more reactors at the Temelin plant. The reactors are expected to be operational in the middle of the next decade.

The plant has been heavily protested by Austrian environmentalists who demand it be closed because of security concerns. Czech authorities insist both plants are safe and will have no problems passing so-called nuclear reactor stress tests currently being conducted across Europe after the Japanese disaster.

Opened a year before the Chernobyl disaster, Dukovany's life was expected to expire in some 30 years. Germany is closing plants of the same age – but the Czechs refuse to do that despite international pressure.

The nation's biggest electricity source last year has already undergone a 26 billion koruna ($1.4 billion) overhaul aimed at increasing its output and improving control systems, as the plant gets ready to ask the nuclear authority for a license extension of at least 10 more years, plant spokesman Petr Spilka said.

At least one new 550-megawatt reactor is to be built at the Dukovany site and more places have been identified for new plants, Huner said.

Huner said a completely new 2,000-megawatt plant in the northeastern part of the country could be operational by 2060.

Unlike the Austrian and German publics, the Czechs support nuclear energy – though they may not be happy to have a plant in their backyard.

Local environmentalists called the government plan "bizarre," saying it would lead to the creation of an unpredictable energy sector.

"Such a heavy reliance on one dominant source of energy could be problematic," said Martin Sedlak, an energy expert for the Friends of the Earth Czech Republic. "The investments into nuclear energy are economically too demanding and unpredictable."

They are not alone.

Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger has vowed to use any legal and political means to stop the Czechs, and his Environment Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich said his country considered the Czech plan "the wrong one" in the wake of Japan's nuclear disaster.

"It can't be that someone expands nuclear energy after Chernobyl and especially Fukushima," Berlakovich told APTN. "Austria is interested in good neighborly relations with the Czech Republic. But in the interest of our people's security we will also reserve all political and legal steps."

The Czechs remain determined to go ahead.

"We consider that what happened in Fukushima did not, by any means, put into question the arguments for nuclear energy," President Vaclav Klaus said at the U.N. last month. "These arguments are strong, economically rational and convincing. Nuclear power is a stable, legitimate, and in some countries, irreplaceable source of energy today."

___

Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland and APTN videojournalist Philipp-Moritz Jenne in Vienna contributed.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DUKOVANY NUCLEAR PLANT, Czech Republic -- Surrounded by corn fields, bicycle routes and a nature reserve, the eight huge cooling towers of the Dukovany nuclear power plant have dominated the Czech cou...
DUKOVANY NUCLEAR PLANT, Czech Republic -- Surrounded by corn fields, bicycle routes and a nature reserve, the eight huge cooling towers of the Dukovany nuclear power plant have dominated the Czech cou...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 210
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
10:53 AM on 11/05/2011
The Czech plan is very smart, they are investing now for a better future, thinking of what is better in the long term. While other countries deal with unreliable, dirty power, they will have enough clean nuclear generated power for their own needs and extra to sell to the highest bidder.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:36 AM on 10/12/2011
Poor fools. Nukes are just a cooling system failure away from meltdown and explosions of cancer all over the world. Not to mention waste, proliferation and terrorism.

Green energy is cheaper, and faster to install.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:58 AM on 10/14/2011
Risk = likelihood * consequences

While you postulate the most dire consequences, even if it requires a source term worth a 100 Fukushimas, you fail to address the likelihood of said scenario, if it even is realistic.

"Faster to install" yes it should be because all due care must be taken with atomic power however the antinukes stretched out the time because of their last minute tactics

The NRC was on to their game and made one step licensing CP+OL.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:47 PM on 10/16/2011
EMP blast, probably going to happen in the next 100 years.

All the nukes cooling system and controls go down at once, and the grid too.

Total nuclear disaster.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:02 AM on 10/18/2011
nukes must be the last power generators back online because they need grid power.

Did you sell refrigerators before you pr'ed for nukes?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
06:02 PM on 10/11/2011
Well done the Czechs. If anything they are being over-cautious, given their positive experience with nuclear power and the likely power shortages in Germany. But they have to be aware that Germany may yet come to its senses and backtrack on its nuclear phase-out. Probably through a series of extensions and special permits, once the reality of electrical shortages looms.

Austria actually abandoned nuclear energy in 1978, having built but never operated Zwentendorf, not in 1986.

It's a little confusing sometimes in German whether people are talking about safety or security. "Sicherheit" covers both.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
11:47 PM on 10/11/2011
I bet if Gen IV or LFTR and IFR become viable, Germany will do a double take and say "well the ban is on older reactors and not this new technology"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 PM on 10/12/2011
I don't think Germany will return to nuclear. Their R&D investment will go into renewables. By the time the new and improved nuclear designs are realized (let alone by the time they would be built) renewables will have the momentum, and the investor's. Further, it is yet to be seen if the Czech projects will go ahead...
outnow
Ban the bomb
11:32 AM on 10/11/2011
A huge mistake. I'll bet that Czech popular opinion ran two-to-one AGAINST, as it did with the Missile Shield. I was there in 2008, and more than 60% of the people opposed the Missile Shield. That percentage grew to 70%. Guess what, the government went ahead anyway. Just like our own government.

Once the great Rivers of Europe are contaminated, the Continent is finished. 40% is already contaminated by Chernobyl. Wild boar in Germany, routing for truffles, pick up too much cesium with radioactivity for human consumption.

Radiation is being detected in St. Louis, Missouri. www.potrblog.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
11:48 PM on 10/11/2011
The great rivers of Europe have a higher likelihood of being contaminated by industrial pollution caused by fossil fuels than nuclear energy.

I wouldnt say its 40%, and the levels are just too low to get all excited about.

Radiation in St Louis could be from a lot of things. Covidien is there.
01:47 PM on 10/10/2011
Maybe they should send some their nuclear managers to help clean up Fukishima and Chernobyl before they plan to add any more nuclear reactors.

Nuclear energy is too costly and too dangerous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
02:12 PM on 10/10/2011
What does a 50 ft tsunami off the coast of Japan barrelling into a 50 year reactor site have to do with land locked Czech Republic and state of the art nuclear?

Sorry I dont get the connection.

Are you suggesting aging Russian aircrafts that tend to crash and burn be the bellweather for all state of the art aircraft to be made by Boeing?

After all, air travel is too dangerous as well and more risky than nuclear on a death per year basis.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SLS11
Its all there, if we just open our eyes...
10:32 PM on 10/10/2011
You keep forgetting the earthquake before the tsunami. I am starting to become concerned. You shouldn't have these bouts of amnesia at your tender age.
09:54 AM on 10/10/2011
Very smart move by the Czechs.

The Germans, Austrians, and Swiss made a huge mistake in deciding to phase out Nuclear Power.
Now they will become even more dependent on imported oil, gas, and electricity, and coal.

Never lose sight of the fact that far more people have died as a result of the coal, oil, and gas industries than the nuclear industry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SLS11
Its all there, if we just open our eyes...
10:34 PM on 10/10/2011
The Austrians are "phasing out" nuclear??? What nonsense! The Austrians never even had nuclear to begin with, no need to "decide to phase out".

As for Germany and Switzerland. We'll see. I have confidence in both nations to work hard to reach their goals, their track record in that regard is excellent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
11:50 PM on 10/11/2011
The need for nuclear power is proportional to the projected population increase. Both Germany and Switzerland have stable populations, with little projected increase the next 20 years.

Now China, India, the Arab world thats the market for nuclear.
11:36 PM on 10/09/2011
As well as the LFTR lets not forget the IntegratedFastReactor ready to build as the GE Prism. Read Huffpro writer Steve kirsch's letter to the White House and vote on the petition.

Google "bravenewclimate 2011/09/28/ why-obama-should-meet­-till"

and "bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/01/petition-white-house-ifr"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:05 PM on 10/09/2011
The Czech Republic will sell nuclear generated electricity to whomever needs energy - even the Germans and Austrians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:20 AM on 10/10/2011
That makes them no better than the French!
As the guys chasing Pepé Le Pew would say, "sacre bleu!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
01:04 AM on 10/10/2011
They know who butters their bread.
06:29 PM on 10/09/2011
The fact is that base-load power is necessary and to date neither wind nor solar are capable of providing this. Eventually there may be technology that will allow storage of theres energy sources and perhaps the use of molten salt as a storage medium that Spain is exploring will become viable, but until then we have a choice, continue to burn fossil fuels or make a capital investment into generation IV nuclear technology.
In the early 1950's a choice was made to devote resources to pressurized water reactors based on the uranium fuel cycle in spite of the fact that the inventor of that very technology warned of the dangers and limitations. The U.S. wanted bomb material so we got stuck with a crappy technology. Dr. Weinberg who patented pressurized water reactors came up with a much, much better idea, molten salt reactors based on Thorium. He spend the rest of his life trying to convince the government to back it but because of business interest in both the weapons development field and the energy industry the idea was killed.
Safe, cheap nuclear power is possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:07 PM on 10/09/2011
I think before we throw out PWR technology in lieu of LFTR we still have a modern Navy. I agree LFTR could be a game changer and they dont teach that in school.
12:21 AM on 10/10/2011
As an ex-Navy nuke I agree that transition for the Navy will be more difficult however LFTR would be ideal for ships. The original concept was for a compact high temp reactor for aircraft (fireball reactor) and would easily fit in a modern sub.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:53 AM on 10/10/2011
You are misrepresenting the facts. The IFR failed globally because of safety concerns (shocking considering the historic minimization of safety concerns by your industry), but more importantly ( for the Industry) the EXPENSE. Since government funding dried up and private investors wouldn't take the risk (despite the favourable forecasts by Industry calculations).

You are trying to sell the public on an unproven, theoretical process that has been abandoned for decades globally. The Industry has failed to deliver. The false promises that these "technologies" will use the radioactive waste you've created...since you haven't figured out how to safely store it. So...we should just trust you that you got it right this time...is that what you're saying?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:31 AM on 10/10/2011
I worked developing the IFR. It did not fail globally. In fact it was safety that was triumphed. The internal pump was turned off and the coolant heat up then self regulated and shut down.

The IFR wasnt theoretical. It was proven in the 90s out in the Idaho desert. I was there when it happened. Where were you?

In fact there is a picture of President Kennedy and First Lady Jackie at EBR-I the predecessor to EBR II which was used to test the IFR concept (EBR II was NOT IFR because the IFR represents the whole UZr core with closed loop pyroprocessing. O Leary shut down EBRII which was a national resource. Now we basically have to start from square 1 if we want to proof the reactor concept again.

I know I am throwing around a lot of technical terms at you , to prove that you do not understand or are misunderstanding the technology
11:47 AM on 10/10/2011
I have not misrepresented a single fact. What exactly are your qualifications?

To your first point I am not, and have never suggested using fast neutron reactions of any plant design. Do you understand the fundamental difference between a fast and thermal neutron? LFTR operates in the thermal spectrum.

Second, capital funding for LFTR has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the energy industries stranglehold on the regulators. The military/industrial complex is what killed LFTR not the costs associated with the technology, which by the way are much lower than a conventional LWR.

Third, as to unproven, hardly. The technology for LFTR has been proven in several prototype reactors including one that operated for almost a decade at Oak Ridge. The fuel cycle has been throughly tested in not only molten salt reactors but in solid fuel assemblies. In fact the very first commercial reactor at Shippingport was initially designed to utilize the Thorium fuel cycle.

So before you go off and make statements, you might want to check your facts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Always Thinkin
Nogoodnik
05:38 PM on 10/09/2011
Hey with these long term nuclear plans hopefully this area doesn't become water stressed in the next 60 years due to climate change or that Molten salt or pebble bed reactors or renewables become cheaper. Hopefully too they'll have the money for a constant stream of subsidies considering nuclear power has a looooong lag time in paying back due to it's insanely high energy costs to start one. Oh and most importantly hopefully the price of uranium stays down long enough to make it worth while. I'm not truly 'against' nuclear energy just sceptical about how magical it is by the nuclear boosters and how dangerous it is to be so heavily dependent on one form of energy with no resilience built into the system.
05:44 PM on 10/09/2011
I worked as a reactor operator for the U.S. Navy so I'm fairly familiar with nuclear power generation and while I don't have a lot of faith in current reactor technologies based on uranium fuel cycles and solid fuels I am very hopeful that LFTR will pave the way forward. Dr. Weinberg , the inventor of the pressurized water reactor warned of the dangers associated with this design and the problems with solid fuels. He championed molten salts throughout his life and was fired from Oak Ridge over this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Always Thinkin
Nogoodnik
06:26 PM on 10/09/2011
I agree it truly was the path not taken. And the fact that the Chinese are moving toward it and most western companies as far as I know aren't is a truly depressing thought.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:33 AM on 10/10/2011
He really wasnt fired. They just cut his funding. It was Milt Shaw and Rickover. Back then there were internal politics.
05:48 PM on 10/09/2011
Read and learn!!!!

AECL has completed 8 new Candu reactor installati­ons over the last twenty years all on time in 4 years and on budget at $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh when the 1.5 cent a kwh fuel and O&M cost is included.T­he last one was completed in 2007 in Europe. Best record in the world for any reactor manufactur­er.

http://www­.cnnc.com.­cn/tabid/1­68/Default­.aspx

That's cheaper.n coal at 4 cents.

Gen IV reactors can run the world for a thousand years on existing nuke waste. No need to mine much more uranium .

Gen iv reactors don
06:04 PM on 10/09/2011
CANDU is marginally more efficient than current U.S. technology... .8% vs. .5% but still has the problems associated with solid fuel assemblies. We need molten fuels, they are safer and many times more efficient.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
03:29 PM on 10/09/2011
This article is not a unbiased look at the issue, as can be clearly seen from the writer's use of language.

For instance, this:

'The Czech plan reflects a sharp division over nuclear use among European nations, and relations with neighboring countries that have decided to go nuclear free could be seriously harmed.'

Puhleeze. Let me know when France becomes a European pariah and we can take another look at this issue. For that matter, let me know when France stops exporting power to its theoretically non- or anti-nuclear neighbors, but I digress.

This is advocacy journalism. How about a little balance on this issue, Aitch Pee? Invite Stewart Brand back, or Jim Hansen, or any of the prominent Greens who support nuclear power.

To the Czechs, I'll just say "Way to go!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Always Thinkin
Nogoodnik
05:29 PM on 10/09/2011
The French nuclear power plants were running at much lower capacity this year due to drought. In Nebraska a few were offline due to fear of flooding which could be a huge mess due to the fuel pools on site. Also in Tennessee the TVA had to power down a nuclear reactor due to the fact that the water temp in the river it cooled the plant with was going to be too hot as it reentered the river. Also who has said that relationships won't be harmed? If the Germans, Swiss and Austrians are heavily against nuclear power in their nations why would they be for nuclear power in the nation right next to them? These are tiny countries compared to the U.S or Russia and radioactive isotopes know no bounds. Yes it could very well impact them.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:38 PM on 10/09/2011
'The French nuclear power ... the river.'

Help me to find your argument here. I don't see it. Is there some significance to this?

'Also who has said that relationsh­ips ... impact them.'

I don't think I said any of that. I'd be more worried about my neighbors burning coal than using nuclear power. You're right that these issues cross borders, but you seem to have some idea that energy issues don't already provide fodder for diplomats, and I am not sure where you get that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
01:05 AM on 10/10/2011
They put up a good front but deep down, will need to rely on nuclear energy regardless of borders.
photo
ShamsT
The door has opened, so there's no escape...
03:20 PM on 10/09/2011
Germany and Austria are a bunch of hypocrites. On one hand, they buy electricity from the Czech Republic to save their hides, thanks to Temelin. On the other hand, they try to browbeat the Czechs with hysterical rants against the very source that makes it possible to export that electricity to them - nuclear power.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Crabtree
01:29 AM on 10/09/2011
Why have they not heard of the thousands of deaths caused from these reactors over the years..Hundreds of thousands have died..from radiation posioning..Just going to the dentist for that ex-ray is killing millions..Yea right.. I plan to start a protest and riots in the street untill all dental offices and nucear reactors are closed..yea that the ticket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
02:20 PM on 10/10/2011
Hundreds of thousands? Where are the bodies? These antinukes say "its the perfect mass murder"

Heck for that matter, so is the Sun.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
01:14 AM on 10/09/2011
Fools.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barry Clarke
Retired Air Traffic Control Aviation Meteorologist
01:12 AM on 10/09/2011
I bet Japan has a lot of extra nuclear reactor parts for sale that you can use...................
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
03:40 PM on 10/09/2011
I doubt it.

There's very little in the nuclear power supply chain that's not in serious demand at the moment (at least as I understand it), mostly because China is buying it all and will probably keep doing so until their nuclear fleet is about 2x the size of that in the US.