By Natalya Yakusheva
In a highly controversial move in February 2011, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) approved a €750 million loan under the EU's Emission Trading Scheme to reconstruct Slovenia's Termoelektrarna Sostanj (TES) coal plant.
The EU's official position is based on a rule that it is up to each Member State to determine its own domestic energy mix, and that Slovenia's decision is legitimate from a legal point of view so long as it continues to abide with other EU regulations. There are concerns, however, that the coal-plant project could lock the Slovenian energy sector into long-term use of high-carbon technology.
The TES facility is located in Sostanj Municipality, in the Saleska Valley, approximately 80km north-west of Ljubljana. TES commenced operation in 1956 and today carries an 809-MW capacity. The proposed new investment would allow the building of a new 600-MW unit, the plant's sixth, which would replace outdated units 1-3, and partially replace the fourth. The new facility would be ready to operate in 2028, according to the proposed scheme. The new unit will be fed with lignite coal from the nearby, 130-year-old Premogovnik Velenje (PV) coal mine, which will be connected to the facility through existing conveyor systems. Unit 6 will be fitted with Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) technology.
According to the Official Plan of Modernisation and Reconstruction of Termoelektrarna Sostanj Power Plant, the aims of the project are to achieve and sustain compliance with the EU's Best Available Techniques (BAT) requirements, and to provide increased efficiency in electricity generation that also meets EU environmental standards and improve quality of life in the Saleska Valley. Moreover, the plan states that the rebuilding project will not jeopardise Slovenia's efforts to achieve a required 9-percent reduction in carbon emissions from thermal energy production in EU member states.
It is alleged that the modernisation scheme will: improve efficiency by increasing production of electric energy per tonne of coal; reduce specific CO2 emissions (tonnes of CO2 released /KWh produced) and environmental impacts; improve air quality in the area due to the BAT adoption and subsequent reduction of emissions of air pollutants such as SO2, NOx and dust; reduce electric energy prices and ensure continued energy production in the Saleska Valley; and, sustain employment in the area at both TES and other connected enterprises such as the PV coal mine.
Not all stakeholders agree with this optimistic assessment, however. Piotr Trzaskowski from environmental pressure group Bankwatch has criticised the European funding of Sostanj as "outrageous", according to EurActiv. "They're discussing a national climate strategy in Slovenia, but if this project is built, long-term de-carbonisation won't make any sense," said Trzaskowski. "It will just be dirty business as usual."
Jernej Stritih, director of Slovenia's Governmental Office for Climate Change, warns that the new unit would burn lignite, the less-efficient energy source. The main problem, according to Stritih is that project assessment fails to examine carbon budgets and related carbon costs beyond 2020. (Post-2020 emission-reduction objectives had not been established when the project was approved.) Analysis from the Slovenian Governmental Office for Climate Change shows that while modernisation could be helpful in achieving 2020 targets, high emissions costs could cripple the facility by roughly 2030. Even if this fate is averted, the plant would likely burn high-carbon brown coal in sufficient quantities to exhaust Slovenia's carbon emissions quota by 2050.
The TES showdown has raised again a number of important questions related alternative energy sources, such as nuclear energy, which itself is the subject of renewed debate in the wake of recent catastrophic events in Japan. Stritih says out that nuclear energy is an important energy resource whose long-term feasibility should be taken into account, but warns that it is also a very demanding technology, requiring large investments and long lead times.
In order to gauge public opinion, Slovenian environmental NGOs are attempting to initiate a referendum on issues of energy policy and development. Slovenia's Parliament has rejected two previous referendum proposals, and the matter remains undecided.
