New unit at Czech Dukovany after Rosatom’s exclusion

Full responses to ČTK’s questions

What do you think this step means for the tender itself? Do you expect it to be launched at all? When?

The tender, which was originally designed to find the optimum in terms of security, technology and economics, has become a selection process driven primarily by geopolitical and political considerations. The Poles chose a similar path from the outset. On the one hand, this simplifies the situation. There is therefore greater agreement among political players. On the other hand, the question is whether the tender’s original setup is now counterproductive.

The question is what would be better from both timing and other perspectives: to launch the tender as originally conceived, or to make a political and geopolitical selection by another means, perhaps following the Polish model. Given that the issue is part of the pre-election political battle and that long-term political agreement needs to be reached on it, the question of whether and when the tender will be carried out is, in my view, completely open.

How capable are the remaining three bidders of supplying the required unit with capacity of up to 1200 MW? What could the individual suppliers (EDF, KHNP, Westinghouse) offer?

In principle, all three bidders are capable of supplying the required unit. However, each has different strengths and weaknesses. Westinghouse’s AP1000 unit has the required capacity. However, experience with constructing this unit outside China has not been good.

The South Korean company would offer a scaled-down model of the APR1400 unit, drawing on experience with the smaller OPR1000 units from which this unit evolved. The project has also reached a certain stage of licensing. It may also be worth noting that its unit uses certain Westinghouse licences, so Westinghouse must agree to their use in Czechia. In this case, a major strength is the very good progress of construction in the United Arab Emirates.

In terms of a reference unit, EDF is probably in the weakest position. It would most likely offer a scaled-down version of the EPR unit. The project does exist, but the question is exactly what stage it has reached.

It should be recalled that the capacity limit for Dukovany is determined by the limits of available cooling during the simultaneous operation of the new and existing units. If preparations for a tender seeking the technological and economic optimum were abandoned in favour of a political selection, this capacity limit might not need to be imposed. Each of the possible solutions has time and cost implications that must be taken into account.

How do you personally think the whole matter of building the new unit will turn out? Which scenario do you think would be best for Czechia?

It is not the start of construction that matters, but the successful completion and operation of the unit. That cannot happen without at least basic agreement among Czech political players. Unfortunately, the issue has become part of the political battle. I do not know whether or when political agreement will be reached, or whether construction of the unit will therefore go ahead.

If Czechia is to move to a low-emission energy mix, it will not be possible without new nuclear units, and more than one will be needed. Renewable sources and available storage will not ensure a replacement for coal and Dukovany, nor sufficient energy, especially in winter. The alternative route is gas, which would be imported predominantly from Russia via Germany. However, it is not low-emission: if greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and transport are included, it does not differ much from coal. My personal view was that a tender focused on the security, technological and economic optimum was the best option. That is not feasible now.

In the current situation, the best solution would probably be for politicians to agree on selecting one of the remaining three candidates. They could also make use of the synergies of cooperation with Poland in the selection process. We will see in the future, by comparing the results of construction of new nuclear units in Hungary, Finland, Poland and Czechia, which solution would actually have been best.