For a country that is about to join the European Union, Bulgaria is proceeding as if debates on the continent and across the planet about alternatives regarding energy are tangential to it.
During the communist era, a decision was made in Bulgaria to pin the future of its energy supply to nuclear generation. In spite of the country’s potential for hydro-electric schemes, Bulgaria’s then-masters opted for nukes. In effect, this has meant that Russia will long be a player in the country’s energy market, because of its input into the Kozloduy project, and now because of the role of a leading Russian company in the revival of the Belene project. Given that Bulgaria, like several other countries in this region, is deeply dependent on other fuels of Russian origin, notably natural gas, this is sounding rather like putting too many eggs in one basket.
At the same time, Bulgaria’s accession to the EU will cost it dearly in respect of its nuclear power generation capacities. Leaving aside the debate as to whether units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy should be shut down - some quarters insist that they should, while others point to peer reviews saying that the units could continue to be used for some time, the fact is that the commitment made to the EU requires that the toggles be turned off, and alternatives found.
Recently, Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev called for a common European policy on nuclear energy, and he was correct to do so. But while there is no common policy, there is a broad stream of thinking within Europe that the future of the energy sector should be based on a diversity of options. Eggs and baskets, again, but also the environmental impact of any single source of energy must be considered. It would seem obvious that Bulgaria should be devoting considerable thought to diversifying its energy supply, given that the shutdowns of the units at Kozloduy will deprive it of its current position as major supplier of energy elsewhere in the region. Yes, accession to the EU will mean additional assistance to producers of biofuels, but is this enough? This country should reconsider hydro-electric schemes, partly because the potential exists for such schemes and partly because the environmental hazard is less than that of nuclear energy, but also as a means of regaining its potential for income earning from supplying energy to Bulgaria’s neighbours.
The fact is that Bulgaria is hardly yet behaving like a modern European country not only when it comes to energy efficiency, but also when its comes to a not unrelated issue, refuse disposal. Of course, much of the tussle over what to do about disposing of the refuse from the capital city has a partisan political dimension, but it also has a bearing on the potential for a more efficient energy source - efficient in the sense that using the capital city’s refuse to generate thermal energy may be a better alternative to the current scurrying around to find places to pile up bales pending the achievement of a more lasting solution, whenever that will be. It should also be pointed out that the current lack of a recycling culture, even though some first faltering footsteps have been taken, also adds up to a waste of energy.
Of course, much of the solution must come from political quarters. Certainly, it would help if Sofia mayor Boiko Borissov and the national government stopped trying to score points off each other and actually did something about recycling and efficient refuse disposal, as it would help if the Environment Minister brought practices in the country up to modern standards instead of devoting his time to thinking up ways for the state to milk the mining industry, and, for that matter, now that President Georgi Purvanov has won a second and final term in office, he could use his informal but considerable influence to bring some lasting benefit to the country through promoting a progressive approach to dealing with the issues of energy and waste.
