New Croatian Nuclear Power Plant on the Danube? EU Considers Funding

Croatia could cover part of the costs of the potential construction of a new nuclear power plant in the next European budget period – with European money. That Brussels is seriously considering a broader opening of European financial instruments to nuclear projects is confirmed for Lider by a source from the European Parliament, while Minister of Economy Ante Šušnjar states that Croatia will be ready to take advantage of such opportunities if they arise.

This will also be a significant turnaround. While renewable energy sources have been financed by European funds for years, projects for the construction of new nuclear power plants have been stalled due to deep political and ideological divisions among member states. Not only have new reactors not been built, but Germany, for example, even shut down its last reactors in 2023. Belgium wanted to take a similar step, but only after the energy crisis did it start considering abandoning that idea.

While these two extremes were directed towards that, France and Finland continued to invest in nuclear power plants. And soon, it seems, other EU member states will as well. Nuclear energy is re-entering long-term European plans, primarily for very practical reasons: the price of energy has become a fundamental issue of competitiveness for European industry, and supply security is a strategic priority. A significant detail in favor of nuclear power is also the fact that it is so-called clean energy, without emissions.

A Cup of Uranium Oxide

– A cup of uranium oxide in Krško contains enough fuel to produce about 400 megawatt-hours of electricity, approximately the annual consumption of about ninety residents of Croatia. The equivalent energy value corresponds to about 160 tons of coal, 100 cubic meters of oil, or 75 thousand cubic meters of natural gas – vividly explained for Lider by the head of the Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, Zvonimir Frka Petešić.

That we cannot speak of Europe as an industrial superpower if our energy prices are too high was also pointed out last week by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in her State of the Union address. Along with the ‘diagnosis’, she offered a ‘direction for therapy’: accelerated electrification and more domestic clean energy, placing nuclear energy alongside renewable sources. If nuclear power plants are part of the answer to high energy prices and the competitiveness of the economy, then it is logical to also raise the question of financing approaches.

As Lider learns, a discussion is currently underway in the European Parliament about why nuclear projects do not have access to certain EU financial instruments under the same conditions as other low-carbon energy sources. And that is not the only open question – the Parliament goes so far as to ask the Commission to reconsider the existing treatment of nuclear energy and its financing options within the new multiannual budget.

– This, of course, does not yet mean that Brussels will subsidize the construction of new large nuclear power plants as early as 2028. European institutions and member states still need to agree on that. For now, it is important to decide what types of support for nuclear projects will be allowed, whether guarantees or favorable loans are the solution, or the possibility of using grants – revealed a source from the European Parliament for Lider.

Croatian Nuclear Program

How important that decision will be is best illustrated by the calculation that the Commission itself has already issued. In the spring, it published a document assessing the investment needs of the European nuclear sector, prepared based on the nuclear plans of member states. According to that document titled ‘Nuclear Illustrative Programme’ (PINC), an incredible 241 billion euros will be needed to achieve European nuclear ambitions by 2050!

This amount refers to the construction of completely new reactors, but also to investments needed to extend the lifespan of existing ones. The Commission thus expects that the EU’s nuclear capacity, currently around 98 gigawatts in 2025, could increase to approximately 109 gigawatts by 2050, which is quite ambitious. The discussion currently taking place in Brussels, we learn from sources close to the Government, is particularly important for Croatia.

While Europe is considering how to finance a new generation of nuclear projects, Croatia does not want to lag behind. A complicating factor is that we have not fully resolved the issue of radioactive waste disposal from the Krško Nuclear Power Plant. The radioactive waste disposal center at Čerkezovac has not yet become operational, which could negatively affect ambitions regarding the new Croatian nuclear power plant.

However, while Čerkezovac is being unraveled, the state is, at least declaratively, ready for a greater nuclear leap. The Parliament, namely, adopted the Law on the Development of Nuclear Energy for Civil Purposes in May, which established the legal framework for the development of the Croatian nuclear program. Thus, it clearly envisions the development of a new nuclear power plant, including the possibility of constructing small modular reactors, with the goal of ensuring that by 2040, at least 30 percent of total annual electricity consumption in Croatia comes from nuclear sources.

Selected Location

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Banski Dvori are already looking towards the new European budget, which is confirmed for Lider by Minister of Economy Ante Šušnjar.

– Croatia has created the necessary prerequisites by adopting the Law on the Development of Nuclear Energy for Civil Purposes and the activities we have carried out so far, so if opportunities for financing nuclear projects arise in the next European budget framework, we will be ready to timely and maximally utilize such opportunities – Šušnjar responded for Lider.

While decisions are being made in Brussels about whether and under what conditions nuclear projects will gain access to European money, Croatia must do its own homework. The first formal step after the controversial law comes into force is the adoption of an action plan for the development of nuclear energy.

The Government must adopt it by December 4 of this year at the latest, according to the Law. This document should provide the first concrete answers regarding acceptable technologies, potential locations for future nuclear power plants, financing and investment models, grid connection, necessary personnel, and the disposal of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

While the official procedure is just beginning, more concrete scenarios are already being considered behind closed doors. Lider has learned from another source close to the Banski Dvori that there is already a most likely location for the new Croatian nuclear power plant, at Tanja on the Danube, an island at the far eastern edge of Croatia, between Erdut and Dalj, which was thoroughly researched as a potential nuclear power plant location during the previous nuclear program. The interlocutor also presents an unusual argument for such a choice: the nuclear power plant located by the Danube, not far from the border with Serbia, is attributed a kind of security role, or a deterrent role.

– There is no rattling of weapons between two neighboring countries that have a nuclear power plant on the border – our source was vivid in his thoughts.

No Experimentation

That Croatia does not have to start from a blank slate in searching for a location is confirmed by Duško Čorak, the founder of INETEC – Institute for Nuclear Technology and one of Croatia’s leading authorities on nuclear reactors.

– When it comes to possible locations for a nuclear power plant, Croatia is not starting from scratch. As part of the previous nuclear program, Tanja on the Danube and Prevlaka near Ivanić-Grad were thoroughly researched – Čorak reminded.

Tanja was, he added, once researched for the possibility of building as many as four blocks, each with a capacity of 1300 megawatts, while Prevlaka near Ivanić-Grad was planned for one block of approximately 1000 megawatts. According to him, the program reached the stage of an international tender and final evaluation of bids before it was politically halted in 1987. Many safety, environmental, and other expert foundations had already been prepared for both locations at that time.

Therefore, Čorak still gives preference to Tanja today, citing its main advantages as more favorable seismic characteristics, sufficient space, and the cooling potential of the Danube. However, the location is just the beginning. If Croatia were to truly embark on the project at Tanja, it must first decide what kind of reactor it wants to build and to whom it will entrust the job worth several billion euros. Čorak believes that Croatia should not experiment with technology that does not yet have sufficient commercial experience, especially when it comes to small modular reactors (SMR). Although INETEC is involved in projects related to new reactor technologies, including some SMR projects, Čorak warns that their serial economics has not yet been proven.

– The first Croatian nuclear project should not be a pilot project – he stated.

Lost Continuity

If the goal is to obtain a large and stable source of electricity by the mid-2030s, he would prioritize the already proven generation of III+ reactors with a capacity of 1000 to 1200 megawatts. However, experiences with the construction of such large reactors show how much the initial estimate can change before the project reaches the stage of generating electricity. Čorak immediately offers an example, the Vogtle nuclear power plant in the U.S. state of Georgia, where two new blocks, Vogtle 3 and 4, were built alongside two existing reactors, using Westinghouse’s AP1000 generation III+ technology.

– These blocks were supposed to demonstrate the return of the American nuclear industry to large construction. The initial estimate for the two new blocks was around 14 billion dollars, and they were supposed to go into operation in 2016 and 2017. Vogtle 3 ultimately began commercial operation only in July 2023, and Vogtle 4 in April 2024. The total cost of the project reached about 31 billion dollars for the owners, or nearly 35 billion when including other costs and payments related to the project – Čorak explained to us.

He also provided other, even more dramatic examples. For instance, the French EDF in Flamanville in Normandy was building a new EPR, a large European reactor with a capacity of about 1600 megawatts. The project was initiated with an estimate of around 3.3 billion euros but ended with a twelve-year delay and a total cost of as much as 23.7 billion euros.

The same type of reactor was started earlier by Finland. Olkiluoto 3 on the western coast of that country was the first EPR to begin construction in Europe. Areva and Siemens were awarded the job in 2003 under a ‘turnkey’ model, worth about 3.2 billion euros, and the plant was supposed to start operating in 2009. Instead, it entered commercial operation only in 2023. The total cost estimate rose to around 11 billion euros.

– Although these three projects are not identical and their final prices cannot be compared ‘euro for euro’ or ‘dollar for dollar’, they could be quite important for the EU as they show how difficult it is to restart the entire industrial machine needed for such a project after decades of neglect. When there has been no continuous construction for decades, not only individual experts are lost. Weak design and contracting organizations, the transfer of experience is interrupted, qualified suppliers disappear, and the ability to serially produce safety-critical equipment gradually diminishes – Čorak warned.

Unfortunate Calculation

Therefore, he says, the problem of Westinghouse and the French Framatome is not that they have lost knowledge of nuclear technology, but that they no longer have the level of comprehensive design, production, and contracting capacities that they had when reactors were built in series. Such an industrial chain cannot be rebuilt overnight. Čorak estimates that it could take a decade or more for its complete restoration and competitiveness. Moreover, while Western projects have exceeded budgets and deadlines, South Korea and China have not stopped serially building reactors, which is why their data looks very different. Much, much different.

For Europe, this is an unfortunate calculation. Cheaper energy is needed as soon as possible because high energy prices are stifling the competitiveness of our industry. Therefore, it is important for Brussels to decide quite quickly not only how it will finance nuclear power plants but also where it wants that money to ultimately end up.