<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Nuclear power in Europe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climatesceptics.org/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org</link>
	<description>nuclear power related activities in Europe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:32:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on RWE Has Terminated Belene Bulgarian Nuclear Plant by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/bulgaria/belene/rwe-has-terminated-belene-bulgarian-nuclear-plant/comment-page-1#comment-3019</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/bulgaria/belene/rwe-has-terminated-belene-bulgarian-nuclear-plant#comment-3019</guid>
		<description>In a letter to the Bulgarian Energy holding, the German company RWE today announced its withdrawal from the controversial Belene nuclear power plant (NPP) in northern Bulgaria. RWE cites doubts about the project’s profitability as the major reason for the company’s retreat. 

“For the past 18 months, we’ve been pointing out to RWE that Belene is a high-risk project in terms of safety, economics, environment and corruption,” says Heffa Schücking from the German environment NGO Urgewald. “It sure took the company a long time to face up to the facts,” she comments. RWE’s decision comes in the wake of a broad grass-roots campaign of German environment organizations against RWE’s investment plans in Belene. Some 30,000 German citizens sent letters and petitions to RWE’s CEO asking him to withdraw from the project. Several of the company’s major investors also spoke out against the plan to invest into a NPP in an area of high seismicity in a country with low nuclear standards and high corruption. 

“This is the beginning of the end of Belene,” says Petko Kovachev from the Bulgarian Green Policy Institute. “After 12 international banks decided to decline financing for the project in 2006 and 2007, RWE was Belene’s last hope,” explains Kovachev. RWE was slated to provide 49% of the project’s equity and its decision to withdraw sends out a clear signal to investors and banks regarding the project’s questionable economics.

“This is a huge success for civil society and nuclear safety in Europe,” says Albena Simeonova from the BeleNE! (No to Belene) Coalition in Bulgaria. Simeonova, who traveled to Germany last Spring to speak at RWE’s annual shareholder meeting, adds: “RWE never should have become involved in the crazy plan to build Russian nuclear reactors in an earthquake area. We are happy to hear that they have finally withdrawn from this dangerous project and hope that our own Government will now follow suit.”

Background:

Construction of the Belene nuclear power station started in 1985. From the beginning, there was controversy around the seismic risks as a large earthquake hit the region in 1977 and killed over 120 people only 14 km from the planned NPP site. The project was halted in 1991, and finally dropped in 1992 due to its environmental and economic risks. In 2003, however, the Bulgarian government restarted the project and in 2006, it decided to build two completely new reactors at the Belene site. The tender for construction was won by the Russian firm Atomstroyexport to build an AES-92 nuclear power station with two VVER 1000/466B reactors. This is a first of a kind reactor that has no operational record elsewhere in the world. The new Bulgarian government, which came to power in July 2009, is currently re-evaluating the project. Although it has also raised doubts concerning the project’s economic feasibility, the current government has nonetheless commissioned a consultant to help private investors for Belene.

Belene is estimated to cost around 10 billion Euros. In 2006, Deutsche Bank, UniCredit and 10 further large commercial banks all turned down applications to finance the project. In 2008 and 2009, several large energy companies also turned down invitations to become investors into the project. 

urgewald.de, bankwatch.org</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a letter to the Bulgarian Energy holding, the German company RWE today announced its withdrawal from the controversial Belene nuclear power plant (NPP) in northern Bulgaria. RWE cites doubts about the project’s profitability as the major reason for the company’s retreat. </p>
<p>“For the past 18 months, we’ve been pointing out to RWE that Belene is a high-risk project in terms of safety, economics, environment and corruption,” says Heffa Schücking from the German environment NGO Urgewald. “It sure took the company a long time to face up to the facts,” she comments. RWE’s decision comes in the wake of a broad grass-roots campaign of German environment organizations against RWE’s investment plans in Belene. Some 30,000 German citizens sent letters and petitions to RWE’s CEO asking him to withdraw from the project. Several of the company’s major investors also spoke out against the plan to invest into a NPP in an area of high seismicity in a country with low nuclear standards and high corruption. </p>
<p>“This is the beginning of the end of Belene,” says Petko Kovachev from the Bulgarian Green Policy Institute. “After 12 international banks decided to decline financing for the project in 2006 and 2007, RWE was Belene’s last hope,” explains Kovachev. RWE was slated to provide 49% of the project’s equity and its decision to withdraw sends out a clear signal to investors and banks regarding the project’s questionable economics.</p>
<p>“This is a huge success for civil society and nuclear safety in Europe,” says Albena Simeonova from the BeleNE! (No to Belene) Coalition in Bulgaria. Simeonova, who traveled to Germany last Spring to speak at RWE’s annual shareholder meeting, adds: “RWE never should have become involved in the crazy plan to build Russian nuclear reactors in an earthquake area. We are happy to hear that they have finally withdrawn from this dangerous project and hope that our own Government will now follow suit.”</p>
<p>Background:</p>
<p>Construction of the Belene nuclear power station started in 1985. From the beginning, there was controversy around the seismic risks as a large earthquake hit the region in 1977 and killed over 120 people only 14 km from the planned NPP site. The project was halted in 1991, and finally dropped in 1992 due to its environmental and economic risks. In 2003, however, the Bulgarian government restarted the project and in 2006, it decided to build two completely new reactors at the Belene site. The tender for construction was won by the Russian firm Atomstroyexport to build an AES-92 nuclear power station with two VVER 1000/466B reactors. This is a first of a kind reactor that has no operational record elsewhere in the world. The new Bulgarian government, which came to power in July 2009, is currently re-evaluating the project. Although it has also raised doubts concerning the project’s economic feasibility, the current government has nonetheless commissioned a consultant to help private investors for Belene.</p>
<p>Belene is estimated to cost around 10 billion Euros. In 2006, Deutsche Bank, UniCredit and 10 further large commercial banks all turned down applications to finance the project. In 2008 and 2009, several large energy companies also turned down invitations to become investors into the project. </p>
<p>urgewald.de, bankwatch.org</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nuclear firm funding for cancer study questioned by Dr Tom Caprio</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/other/nuclear-firm-funding-for-cancer-study-questioned/comment-page-1#comment-2547</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr Tom Caprio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 22:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=2018#comment-2547</guid>
		<description>power companies will want results first,then change data for money. nuclear radiation causes cancer at rates that people have not even begun to realize
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>power companies will want results first,then change data for money. nuclear radiation causes cancer at rates that people have not even begun to realize</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bulgaria&#8217;s nuclear dilemma by Rod Adams</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/decommissioning/bulgarias-nuclear-dilemma/comment-page-1#comment-2393</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=2064#comment-2393</guid>
		<description>One thing that might convince you to keep learning and investigating is making a similar journey to a coal fired power station. While you are there, look for the waste storage locations and ask similar questions of the plant operators. If you can satisfy yourself that coal is a better solution then you have your answer.

If you find that you are not completely happy with the tall smokestacks and enormous ash piles that show where coal waste goes, perhaps those contained building with their fairly compact waste products will begin to look a little different in your unconvinced eyes.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing that might convince you to keep learning and investigating is making a similar journey to a coal fired power station. While you are there, look for the waste storage locations and ask similar questions of the plant operators. If you can satisfy yourself that coal is a better solution then you have your answer.</p>
<p>If you find that you are not completely happy with the tall smokestacks and enormous ash piles that show where coal waste goes, perhaps those contained building with their fairly compact waste products will begin to look a little different in your unconvinced eyes.</p>
<p>Rod Adams<br />
Publisher, Atomic Insights<br />
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Explosion at centrifuge maker by Digvijay</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/netherlands/urenco-almelo/explosion-at-centrifuge-maker/comment-page-1#comment-2376</link>
		<dc:creator>Digvijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=950#comment-2376</guid>
		<description>need case study report of explossion &amp; fire on centrifuge</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>need case study report of explossion &amp; fire on centrifuge</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Old fashioned nuclear tech under attack by mircea metes</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/romania/cernavoda/old-fashioned-nuclear-tech-under-attack/comment-page-1#comment-2370</link>
		<dc:creator>mircea metes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=748#comment-2370</guid>
		<description>Without nuclear power  for convertion,in Romania,the future for us will be  very expensive and black.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without nuclear power  for convertion,in Romania,the future for us will be  very expensive and black.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Slovakia to build new nuclear plant with Czech CEZ by Tanja</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/company/cez/slovakia-to-build-new-nuclear-plant-with-czech-cez/comment-page-1#comment-2336</link>
		<dc:creator>Tanja</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/slovakia/bohunice/slovakia-to-build-new-nuclear-plant-with-czech-cez#comment-2336</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I am Czech living in the US and although I do read the Czech news I had no idea about this upcoming power plant situation. It is nice to see the two countries working together again. Let&#039;s hope they will do a good (and safe!) job!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am Czech living in the US and although I do read the Czech news I had no idea about this upcoming power plant situation. It is nice to see the two countries working together again. Let&#8217;s hope they will do a good (and safe!) job!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nuclear Power: Curse or Opportunity? by Dr Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/company/areva/nuclear-power-curse-or-opportunity/comment-page-1#comment-2325</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=2034#comment-2325</guid>
		<description>way too long article, lost interest nearly halfway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>way too long article, lost interest nearly halfway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New NPP in Lithuania will not cover demands for energy in all Baltic countries – Estonian expert by Alexandra Prokopenko</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/country/lithuania/ignalina/new-npp-in-lithuania-will-not-cover-demands-for-energy-in-all-baltic-countries-%e2%80%93-estonian-expert/comment-page-1#comment-2277</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexandra Prokopenko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=1945#comment-2277</guid>
		<description>The whole Baltic region is too small to keep 2 large NPPs (Kaliningrad and Visaginas), even for export purposes, considering also the planned Belarusian and Estonian NPPs. The electric grids are simply not ready for such a development, while the Baltic countries are still tied with Russia and rather isolated from Western Europe (except from Estonia with EstLink). 
With large NPPs the one built first will occupy the entire market of the region leaving no place for the other. Kaliningrad has good chances here, since Visaginas seems to be slowed down because of numerous parties participating that cannot agree on final conditions and shares.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole Baltic region is too small to keep 2 large NPPs (Kaliningrad and Visaginas), even for export purposes, considering also the planned Belarusian and Estonian NPPs. The electric grids are simply not ready for such a development, while the Baltic countries are still tied with Russia and rather isolated from Western Europe (except from Estonia with EstLink).<br />
With large NPPs the one built first will occupy the entire market of the region leaving no place for the other. Kaliningrad has good chances here, since Visaginas seems to be slowed down because of numerous parties participating that cannot agree on final conditions and shares.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nuclear project under way by fotograf trnava</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/company/enel/slovenske-elektrarne/nuclear-project-under-way/comment-page-1#comment-2274</link>
		<dc:creator>fotograf trnava</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=1844#comment-2274</guid>
		<description>but the construction and finishing the mochovce plant is cheaper than importing the energy from austria...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but the construction and finishing the mochovce plant is cheaper than importing the energy from austria&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nuclear isn&#8217;t necessary by Eugene</title>
		<link>http://www.climatesceptics.org/general/nuclear-isnt-necessary/comment-page-1#comment-2098</link>
		<dc:creator>Eugene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climatesceptics.org/?p=1651#comment-2098</guid>
		<description>I am looking for some idea and stumble upon your posting :) decide to wish you Thanks. Eugene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am looking for some idea and stumble upon your posting <img src='http://www.climatesceptics.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  decide to wish you Thanks. Eugene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
