In January, Westinghouse Electric Company signed a nuclear-fuel contract extension with Ukraine’s State Enterprise National Nuclear Energy Generation Company (SE NNEGC) Energoatom. The deal “solidifies Westinghouse’s role as a strategic partner for Energoatom and demonstrates our ability to support Ukraine with their energy diversification.” The contract includes nuclear fuel deliveries to seven of Ukraine’s 15 nuclear-power reactors between 2021 and 2025, expanding and extending the existing contract for six reactors that was set to expire in 2020.

On July 19, Westinghouse reported that a full core of VVER-1000 fuel had been loaded into a nuclear reactor unit in Ukraine — the first one to operate with Westinghouse VVER-1000 fuel assemblies as the sole fuel source. According to Business Wire, “Westinghouse currently supplies fuel to six of Ukraine’s 15 nuclear power reactors. Beginning in 2021, the number of reactors with Westinghouse fuel will increase to seven.” The goal is to break Ukraine’s dependence on supplies of energy from Russia.

Westinghouse has been operating for 13 years in Ukraine. Its fuel has proven to be incompatible with Soviet VVER reactors. In March, the American company revealed a conceptual VVER fuel design upon the successful completion of an EU-funded project targeted at diversifying the nuclear fuel supply for VVER-440 reactors in Europe. Perhaps Westinghouse has accomplished its mission. If it find success in Ukraine, it could greatly expand its operations in Europe to include Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria, while elbowing its competitor — Russia’s ROSATOM — away from its traditional markets. Ukraine will be the first to use the new Westinghouse fuel — a risky business. But is it worth it?  

The next step is to make Ukraine reject the new-generation Russian reactors in favor of the Westinghouse-produced АР1000. Russia has designed a new generation of units. For instance, the VVER-1200 unit has already begun operations at the Novovoronezh NPP, and the first unit of the Leningrad NPP-2 was started up in late 2017. Last year, a large team of international experts were impressed with the Russian reactors’ performance, especially with the high safety standards.

ROSATOM controls 17.7% of the global nuclear-fuel market. It supplies nuclear fuel to 78 (out of 440) reactors used for energy production in 15 (out of 30) countries. Not a single bid to supply nuclear fuel has been lost in 10 years. Every sixth energy-producing reactor in the world runs on fuel fabricated by TVEL. Five EU member states, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, and Slovakia, operate Russian reactors — four VVER-1000 and 14 VVER-440 type units. They currently receive fuel supplies from TVEL. 

So why is Ukraine willing to cooperate with the US company, unlike, for instance, Hungary and Bulgaria, which have made the decision not to sign contacts with Westinghouse, citing dubious safety guarantees? What is Kiev getting? The prices charged by ROSATOM and Westinghouse are, by and large, comparable. Perhaps Westinghouse will charge a bit more and not do one thing that’s very important — US companies don’t recycle their spent nuclear fuel. Ukraine will have to grapple with this problem on its own, something it has neither the facilities nor the experience to do.

ROSATOM is the leader in nuclear-fuel recycling, but Kiev had made its choice. So, Ukraine’s only option in this situation was to get a loan from the US to build a spent-fuel storage facility (CSFSF). It was a fresh experience for America’s Holtec International, which used experimental technology instead of the true-and-tried methods normally used by ROSATOM.

The first stage is due to be completed in 2019. The storage facility the Americans are building is near-surface. Spent fuel will placed in special containers on the surface, turning Ukraine into a nuclear waste dump.  No other country has done this, for safety reasons. It sounds crazy, but it looks like the Ukrainian public will have to put up with this “independent” decision. Economic expediency has been sacrificed for purely political goals. But this “independence” is not complete, because Westinghouse buys its uranium at home, and it’s a well-known fact that ROSATOM dominates the US uranium market.

Meanwhile, TVEL, ROSATOM’s fuel-supply subsidiary, has begun production of a new fuel type, TVS-KVADRAT (FA-SQUARE), which is designed for PWR (pressurized water reactor) plants of Western design. There are about 200 PWR reactors in the world.

The TVS-Kvadrat fuel is a 17-by-17 lattice PWR fuel assembly that TVEL developed for operation in Westinghouse-designed three- and four-loop PWRs. There are 35 such units in operation in the US. The technology is based on a TVEL fuel design used in Russian VVER units. The first test batch of ROSATOM’s  fuel assemblies is to be delivered to the US in 2019.

In 2021, the Russian company will deliver fuel to Sweden’s Vattenfall Nuclear Fuel AB, which operates the Ringhals nuclear power plant.  TVS-K fuel is currently being used in a pilot operation there.  Sweden has vast experience operating nuclear reactors; it knows what it’s doing. It has made an independent decision too. In contrast to Ukraine, Sweden believes that ROSATOM’s know-how in nuclear-fuel recycling is an important advantage allowing Stockholm to save huge sums of money that would otherwise be spent on deep underground storage. Ukraine has shot itself in the foot by making a politically motivated decision instead of promoting a fair completion by choosing what better suits its needs.

It could not be clearer that this international agreement forbids provision of nuclear expertise or material to a country that has not ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which the US State Department describes as «the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime».

But even cornerstones can be undermined, and that process began when President George W Bush started negotiations with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005 to produce a US-India nuclear cooperation agreement. It took considerable effort by both sides to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement whereby India would have access to nuclear material and technology consistent with the primary US aim of entry to the potentially large Indian market for construction of nuclear power stations. The commercially-based Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy of 2007 is known as the 123 Agreement because it was necessary to amend Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act 1954 which governs ‘Cooperation with Other Nations’.

India declined to abide by the Act’s specification that it «must have full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, essentially covering all major nuclear facilities», because this would involve inspection of defence-related establishments, and Washington promptly removed this inconvenient requirement.

The modified Act seemed to clear the way for nuclear collaboration on a major scale, but there has as yet been no commitment by US nuclear plant manufacturers, mainly because they do not want to be held financially responsible for a nuclear accident at a power station which they designed or built.

It is accepted worldwide that national nuclear plant operators are accountable in the event of accidents, but India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, and Rule 24 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011, provide for the right of recourse, pursuit of which could involve foreign enterprises, be they suppliers or operators, being held liable for damages. In spite of lobbying by US President Obama during his 2015 visit to India, which was much praised as having achieved a «breakthrough» in removing the liability barriers which India’s parliament strongly supported, there has been no radical change that would encourage US firms to seek major contracts. (The Westinghouse Electric Company, generally thought to be American, which is negotiating to build six nuclear plants in India, has been owned by Japan’s Toshiba since 2006.)

In February 2015 India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that the Civil Liability Act «channels all legal liability for nuclear damage exclusively to the operator» – but Clause 17 of the Act specifies that operators are permitted to seek financial recourse from suppliers after paying compensation for «patent or latent defects or sub-standard services», which are, naturally, open to legal interpretation in the event of a disaster, which is no doubt being borne in mind by India’s legislators who have not forgotten the 1984 disaster at the Union Carbide chemical plant at Bhopal that killed and maimed many thousands of people.

While there have as yet been no commercial benefits to the US from its nuclear accord with India, there have been other effects, including some that are less than desirable in the context of «proliferation of nuclear weapons» which is condemned by the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The Arms Control Association records that «In September 2008, in a move led by the United States, the Nuclear Suppliers Group eased long-standing restrictions on nuclear trade with India by the group’s members. NSG rules generally forbid the sale of nuclear goods, such as reactors and fuel, to non-NPT countries». Before this ‘easing’ of international constraints, India had been unable to import uranium and was therefore entirely reliant on its own mines, which produce only low-grade ore but are in the long term capable of providing fuel to any number of nuclear facilities, civilian and military. The only drawback is that domestic processing would be enormously expensive. Importing uranium is very much cheaper.

As a result of being excused from the international stipulation requiring its adherence to the NPT before being permitted to import nuclear fuel and technology, India negotiated nuclear cooperation arrangements with eleven nations, including the holder of the world’s largest uranium deposits, Australia, whose government’s 1977 Uranium Export Policy had specified that «customer countries must at a minimum be a party to the NPT and have concluded a full-scope safeguards Agreement with the IAEA». But profit beats morality, and, as noted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, «Australia was the last domino to fall when it created an exception for India to its export policies in December 2011».

Countries involved in nuclear cooperation with India observe similar rules to those of Australia which specifies that its uranium «may only be exported for peaceful non-explosive purposes». And of course it cannot be claimed that foreign-supplied uranium could be used to produce nuclear weapons. These are manufactured at installations using India’s abundant (although process-expensive) indigenous ore which, thanks to the flexibility of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, is no longer needed to fuel civilian nuclear power stations. Quantities, quality and details of application need not be revealed.

Following the US-India nuclear agreement the president of the Federation of American Scientists, Charles D Ferguson, wrote in Arms Control Today that «by granting India access to uranium, the deal allows India to divert its indigenously-mined uranium to military applications without detracting fuel from the civilian program» – and that is the crux of the entire affair.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, at the urging of the United States, approved a measure that assists India to produce more nuclear weapons more economically. The «cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime» was dealt a massive blow. Although the US Hyde Act of 2006 requires the President to inform Congress of non-compliance with «the provision of nuclear fuel in such a manner as to facilitate the increased production by India of highly enriched uranium or plutonium in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities» it is impossible for the US to certify that this is not taking place because there is no provision for verification. Clever India.

Membership of the NSG remains a major foreign policy goal for India, and US support for its ambition was formally indicated in 2015 joint statement by President Obama and Prime Minister Modi which «committed [them] to continue to work towards India’s phased entry» to the Group. The US has made it clear that it will continue to support India’s efforts to achieve its objective, and that the requirement for «full compliance» with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or other «equivalent international nuclear nonproliferation agreement» is irrelevant so far as India is concerned.

It’s intriguing how international agreements can be reinterpreted, distorted, massaged or just plain ignored when it suits Washington’s policies – and, it seems, the pockets, prosperity and re-election prospects of America’s Legislators.

The decision of Russia means that starting from June 16 it supplies through the Ukrainian pipe-line only the amount of gas destined for European countries. Ukrainian Naftogas regularly failed to pay showing no signs of readiness to find a compromise solution. The company’s debt for gas is $4, 458 billion: $1, 451in November-December 2013 and $3, 007 in April-May 2014. Accord-ing to Gasprom, there were no payments in June. (1) Russia assured European customers it would continue to supply their gas. Any shortfall would be the fault of Ukraine, Gasprom chief executive Alexei Miller said. Ukraine was responsible for theft and following disruption to ex-ports in a previous dispute. «Gazprom will simply supply Ukraine as much as gas as it will have bought, and to the Russian border with Ukraine we will send as much gas as Europe should get and Ukraine should transit», Miller said in an interview on Rossiya-24 television. «It would be our Ukrainian partners' responsibility for a so-called unauthorized off-take. But Gazprom from its part will do everything to ensure that European customers have no problems», Miller told the news show Vesti. If Ukraine disrupts Russian gas transit via its territory, the European Commis-sion is ready to negotiate increased deliveries through the Opal pipeline, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said on June 16. (2) «We have discussed this issue with the European Commission. It is now as follows: if we record problems with transit via the territory of Ukraine, then the issue of the Opal pipeline will be raised and it will be solved», he explained. The Opal pipeline connects the Nord Stream pipeline with Europe’s gas transportation network. Gazprom was unable to run Nord Stream at full capacity because Europe restricted the volumes of gas permitted for delivery via Opal under the terms of the so-called EU’s Third Energy Package, which stipulates that the companies involved in gas production cannot be the owners of the long distance pipelines located in the region.

Is it true that Europeans never learned from previous «gas rows»? The United States and the Eu-ropean Union do it on purpose for a number of reasons. And they did their best to undermine any compromise at the Russia-Ukraine gas talks. 

The US goals are clear. It sees the current conflict as a continuation of a bigger geopolitical game related to the energy transportation routes going through Ukraine and affecting the interests of the whole Eastern and Central Europe. The US wants Europe to depend on the supplies under its control. It was not a call to stop military actions in the country and launching peace talks that defined the US-Ukraine agenda after Petro Poroshenko won the presidential race. The issue of priority set by President Obama was the diversification of energy sources to reduce the dependence on Russian gas. 

And it’s not gas only. The US has tried to take under its control the Ukraine’s nuclear energy sector under the pretext of the need to fight back the Russia’s expansion. Westinghouse Electric Company is the main driving force of this policy. The company is responsible for 20% of world supplies. Nearly 50 percent of the nuclear power plants in operation worldwide are based on Westinghouse technology. Since the 1990s Westinghouse cooperates with US government and special services to establish control over Central and Eastern Europe and the whole post-Soviet space.

The accidents at Temelin, the Czech Republic and at the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant have slowed the pace. The present deadlock provoked by the US creates a chance to make up for the losses.

By the end of June, 2013 the company issued a statement expressing gratitude to US State Secretary John Kerry for his support of the company’s activities abroad. «Secretary Kerry’s ef-forts to move discussions forward with an announced goal of reaching commercial agreement in the September timeframe to support licensing and site development of AP1000 reactors in India are proving to be invaluable», Westinghouse President and CEO Danny L Roderick told Energy Daily, a venerated e-newsletter. «Efforts of a range of United States Government officials and agencies in helping Westinghouse and other US-based companies pursue business in the global commercial nuclear energy market are paying off. John Kerry’s visit to India is the most recent example of this support», the e-newsletter said. (3) Today the White House and State Depart-ment want Kiev to stop energy cooperation with Russia. 

The European Union acts in unison with the United States. Actually Brussels threatens the very same European energy security it so ardently defends at the talks with Moscow. The European Union is trying to take advantage of the situation and double down making Moscow make max-imum concessions on the issue of gas prices while using the Third Energy Package for the pur-pose. Having refused the Moscow’s compromise proposal, the European Union puts itself in danger of facing again the situation that took place in 2008-2009. Back then the Russian gas supplies going through Ukraine were greatly reduced. The statistics are eloquent: the supplies to Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Macedonia, Moldavia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Croatia were stopped. The amount was reduced by 90% for Italy and Poland; it went down by 75% in case of the Czech Republic and 70% in case of France. (4) 

EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger immediately stepped back saying he was «not pessimistic» about a deal. In a surprise move, he also signaled that issues around Gaz-prom's proposed South Stream gas pipeline were not insurmountable. According to the offi-cial, he believes Russia will comply with its commitments and continue gas supplies to the EU member-states. (5) The European Commission has said the pipeline – which would take gas di-rectly to Europe bypassing Ukraine – may break EU competition rules, but on June 16 Mr. Oettinger said: «South Stream is a project that we indeed accept». (6) The question is how re-sponsible is Mr. Oettinger and the European Union as a whole, can they be trusted? 

Endnotes: 

The US interest is justified; Ukraine's power sector is the tenth largest in the world and the fifth largest in Europe in terms of nuclear reactors on its soil. The country boasts 15 nuclear power generating units at four nuclear power plants. The largest nuclear facility in Europe, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, is located in Ukraine. All reactors are Russia-produced VVER type. 

After the first «orange» revolution in 2004-2005, when US proxy Victor Yushenko came to power, an agreement was reached with American Westinghouse on the supply of nuclear fuel ТВС-W for Soviet reactors. In April of 2012, there was malfunctioning of ТВС-W installations at the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant. They were associated with structural deficiencies of the manufacturer. The Energoatom’s (National State Nuclear Energy Generating Company of Ukraine) damage was $175 million. 

S. Barbashev, the Vice-president of Ukrainian Nuclear Society, said that technologically US-produced installations were not up to par. He believes the US technology has great deficiencies and is not compatible with Ukrainian reactors. V. Nikitin of UkrAtomEnergoBud has said the Westinghouse choice as an alternative supplier was politically motivated and economically unreasonable since the US-made fuel is 30% more costly than the fuel imported from Russia. 

Other Westinghouse fuel users have faced the same kind of problems with nuclear plants: Krško in Slovenia, Loviisa in Finland and Temelin in the Czech Republic. All these countries have refused to deal with the US supplier. 

In 2013 all Westinghouse fuel assemblies were taken away from the second unit of the South Ukrainian nuclear plant. About the same time, the Yanukovych administration officials announced the start of construction of a nuclear fuel plant in the village of Smolino, Kirovograd region. The project is one of the most ambitious engineering projects in the world and is to be implemented by the joint Russian-Ukrainian consortium «Nuclear Fuel Production Plant,» consisting of TVEL (Russia) and the State Concern «Nuclear Fuel». The plant will satisfy the needs of all the Ukrainian NPPs in nuclear fuel. The first stage of the facility is to be commissioned by the end of 2015. Looking at the dates one can see the decision to reject further cooperation with Americans coincided with the start of Euromaidan protests in Kiev. 

One may wonder if there is any link between the European Union, Ukrainian nuclear power plants and the failures of Westinghouse. Here is an explanation. After the initialing of the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, Brussels unexpectedly said it wanted EURATOM to be a Ukrainian association partner. EURATOM comprises a few full-cycle operators like: French-German Areva NP, British-Dutch-German URENCO, which is going to be sold to the Areva NP mentioned above and French state company EDF. Aveva NP is active on US market being a leading producer of heat generating elements manufactured under Westinghouse license. Back to square one!

European heat generating elements producers have their own interests in Ukraine. It is demonstrated in the cases of Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania, Kozloduy and Belene plants in Bulgaria or Bohunice plant in Slovakia. These countries faced the same condition for entering the European Union – the closure of plants able to compete with French facilities. As a result, energy prices in Lithuania doubled, heating costs increased four times and mass protests sparked in Bulgaria after a man unable to pay electricity bills set himself on fire. 

That’s what is in store for Ukraine. On the one hand, they make it use American nuclear fuel to get the nuclear stations out of order. On the other hand, the association agreement with the European Union clearly states that Ukrainian internal and export electricity prices are to be the same. Having done away with Ukrainian nuclear plants, European suppliers will guarantee «Paris level» prices for supplies to Ukraine. Besides, The European Union will have unlimited access to the uranium deposits in the Dnepropetrovsk and Kirovograd regions. That’s where a joint Russia-Ukraine nuclear fuel production facility was being constructed. The project will not be implemented now and the fuel will be delivered straight to the European Union to return to Ukraine in the form of kilowatts to be paid for at European prices. 

It’s not everything. After recycling, the Russian fuel designed for VVER reactors has been stored in Russia. The Westinghouse waste will have to be stored in Ukraine. Western nuclear operators view Ukraine as a giant graveyard of nuclear waste. Actually the process is underway. 

In 2005 US-British consortium Holtec-BNFL won a tender to build a centralized nuclear waste storage in Ukraine. It was planned to launch it in 2015 but the project has not entered the active phase of construction as of now. Meanwhile 2 thousand tons of fuel are stored in densely packed spent fuel wet pools. Actually the storages are nothing else but makeshift dumps. There are such graveyards in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. 

According to former member of Ukrainian parliament Vadim Kolesnichenko, the goal of US expansion into the Ukrainian nuclear market is the elimination of Ukrainian nuclear energy infrastructure. When it becomes a thing of the past, Ukraine will have to buy energy in Europe at quite different prices. It’s all part of a larger plan aimed at making Ukraine a colonial state. 

The regime in Kiev is ready to pay this price in order to convert the country into a bridgehead against Russia.

Recent visit of Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas to Russia resulted in signing a number of memorandums and agreements on hydropower, combined-cycle power plants and other large-scale projects of mechanical engineering. Partnership for high-tech development also includes one crucial nuclear energy project in a small village of Temelín in southern Bohemia. The Temelín Nuclear Power Plant, with its 2,000 MW of installed capacity, is the largest power resource in the Czech Republic and a profitable business opportunity. The stakes are high: tender winner will have to double NPP's energy output building two new reactors by 2017. Both units are to be completed in 2025 and should produce electricity for 60 years. Czech industrial sector is in need of stable and affordable energy source to boost national GDP in the middle of crisis-stricken European Union (now industry accounts for 40% of Czech GDP and employment).

The French company Areva participated in the tender process through last October but had to leave it. ČEZ Group, the policy-maker in the Czech Republic on energy issues, eliminated Areva’s bid citing serious mistakes. The French are currently trying to challenge the decision in the Office for the Protection of Competition (UOHS), but Czech experts believe Areva’s chances to open an antitrust procedure are rather slim. Eventually US-Japanese corporation «Westinghouse-Toshiba» and Russian-Czech engineering consortium of «Skoda JS», «Atmostroyexport» and «Gidropress» have come through to the tender’s finals.

The Czech financial regulator is now working to bring down the prices. On a more subtle level there is also a political rivalry going on between Prime Minister Nečas (Civic Democrats, «ODS») and Finance Minister Miroslav Kalousek (Conservative «TOP 09»). «I must say that offers of both bidders surprised us very unpleasantly in terms of price,» Kalousek said to the «Hospodarske Noviny» newspaper earlier in May.

«The tender will be transparent and the best bid will win», Prime Minister Nečas announced in Moscow on May, 28. The Czech Republic «absolutely welcomes the participation of the Russian-Czech MIR.1200 consortium in tender procedures to complete the two Temelín NPP units», he confirmed. Russia treats Czech Republic as a traditional partner and plays with an open hand. «If we are able to prove the solidity of our position, Czech companies will receive very significant orders worth up to 6 billion euro», Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said to the press. Considering the volume of Czech business community’s net investments to Russia, this highly pragmatic scenario appears to be the most probable. First, the power core of Temelín NPP that needs an upgrade is the Soviet-designed VVER1000 reactor. Russia can ensure consistency of operations which is extremely important in such technology-intensive project. Second, Russia’s engineering solutions are well-known to be robust and stable – an important feature in densely populated Europe.

However, the US-Japanese nuclear giant Westinghouse-Toshiba does not lose hope despite its shattered public image after the Fukushima tragedy. Westinghouse's European branch vice-president Mike Kirst said in reaction to Dmitry Medvedev's words that the corporation would not officially comment on Russia's move. This strategy of silence could be a part of a cunning PR strategy. The US has a long history of aggressive unofficial lobbying for its transnational corporations (1). For example, Monsanto’s notorious PR-activity abroad has recently caused global citizen protests

In December, 2012 Hillary Clinton visited Prague in attempt to save the situation for Westinghouse. «Who reaps the benefits?» – asked Democratic Party activist Tom Gallagher half a year ago following Czech-US talks. Westinghouse-Toshiba spends about $2,000,000 annually lobbying Washington to remind the «right» people on the Hill that it is a loyal American company. The US State Department’s international lobbying for the corporation could be easily explained to the American citizens as «protecting their national interests». When some see it is right to invest in publicity, inhabitants of small towns and villages in Bohemia, where reactors are planned to being built, would obviously prefer construction companies to put money on modern safety actuation systems.

The final contract is to be signed by the end of 2013, but the licensing and design phase will run 44 months after the agreement's signing. It should be a matter of national consensus in the Czech Republic that Temelín NPP is a too serious strategic issue to be a subject of disputes between two ruling parties. Prime Minister Nečas guaranteed the tender transparency, therefore market will decide on the future of Temelín.

__________________

(1) In 1974, Westinghouse was accused of paying a bribe («sales commission») to Philippines President Marcos’s golf partner Hermini Disini to influence him to build Bataan NPP.

The MIR.1200 Consortium is an alliance of Czech Skoda JS and Russian Gidropress and Atomstroyexport, the subsidiaries of Russian firm Rosatom. Another bidder in the tender beside the Czech-Russian consortium is the US-Japanese company Westinghouse…

In 2013 a final decision is to be taken based on the results of tender. On January 29 Denny Roderick, president of Westinghouse, accused the other bidder of «disingenuous» activity, suggesting it was trying to pressure firms into aligning themselves with the Russian bid. “It's disrespectful. They're creating this illusion that if you don't sign up with the Russians, you won't get any work. It's going to take this entire country to build this plant. This is one of the biggest projects the Czech Republic has ever attempted», he said. 

It’s an open secret the Czech-Russian consortium plans to give 70% of orders to local Czech enterprises. It means the investments will remain in the country, a solid argument in favor of the bidder.

Mr. Roderick hails from Pittsburg, the capital of US steel industry that he’s closely tied to and defends interests of. It’s enough to remember his participation in the Ostrava conference funded by Westinghouse called “Completion of the Temelнn Power. Station: Opportunities for Czech Industry”. He announced Westinghouse would source 80,000 metric tons of steel from Czech companies, the weight of three Eifel towers (Mr. Roderick never mentioned it was just 1% of overall steel production in the country). He said, «The use of most materials and other commodities from local sources is natural for us, because it is also economically more effective than to import these materials». Rosatom's spokesman Pavel Vlcek told CTK. «We can see the main benefit for the Czech industry above all in purchasing products and services with high value added from Czech companies», Vlcek said. Many a time Rosatom proved that its words matched the deeds. In 2007- 2011 the Russian company made 2.5 billion crown purchases in the Czech Republic, the figure was as high as over 3 billion crowns in the first nine months of 2012.

The intent of Rosatom to fund the project exasperates Westinghouse. The Russia’s consortium could become a co-owner of the project or it can grant a loan to cover the expenses of Temelin extension. According to Denny Roderick, it’s a violation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development standards. Westinghouse can get a loan with very beneficial interest rates from the Export-Import Bank of the United States or the Japan International Bank for Cooperation (JIBC), but it will hardly make the Russian bid less attractive. 

The fact Westinghouse lashes out against Rosatom is part of US general policy aimed at keeping away or, sometimes even squeezing out, Russian business from Central and Eastern Europe. 

It is propitious to remember how the Bulgarian government led by Boiko Borisov had to resign. It was caused by street protests over high energy prices. The hikes were provoked by the imposed agreements with US energy companies AES and Contour Global purchased and invested into two local power stations and then lobbied a 15 years contract. All these years Bulgarian national energy company has to buy out all the production at exclusively high prices while there is no alternative. 

The US administration is involved in a complicated scheme it has plotted to gain success in the Czech Republic. The United States resorts to outright pressure. By the end of 2012 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed for the United States Department of Energy, transferred 75 kilograms of fluoride salt mixture to Czech Nuclear Research Institute for experiments. The preliminary condition for the transaction was no connection to Russian business among founders and leaders of the Institute. The Czechs gave up; the fluoride salt was transferred only after a ЉKODA JS representative was made leave the supervisory board. Russian OMZ company is a ЉKODA JS 16% shareholder. 

Western competitors attack Soviet reactors and Russian nuclear technologies as a whole for lack of safety. The Chernobyl 1986 accident is usually cited as an example. The European Union demanded to close Ignalinsk power plant because it had a Chernobyl type reactor. It was almost a prime condition for Lithuania’s entry into the EU. Vilnius complied. The European Union offered no due compensation: Lithuania was offered only €210 million instead of 770 requested to close the facility in 2014-2017. After that Lithuania initiated power plants checks in the countries – members of the European Union. 

Seven experts from the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) from Armenia, Hungary, Slovakia and Russia conducted a Temelin inspection at the beginning of this March. The conclusion will hardly make Westinghouse happy. Organization and management, professional qualifications, fire control, training of staff and radiation control – everything was reported to be up to standards, the plant is reliable and safe. 

Still the attacks against the Czech Russian consortium never stop. Visiting Prague last December, the US Secretary of State put it straight, «We're not shy about pressing the case for Westinghouse». According to her, Westinghouse offers the most reliable technology and the best security guarantees in the tender for the completion of the nuclear power plant in Temelin. She mentioned the fact of the Czech economy’s heavy dependence on energy exports from the Russian Federation, with all of its nuclear fuel, over 60% of its oil and 70% of its natural gas coming from Russia. The Westinghouse choice would open job opportunities for Czech and US companies and workers.

The Czech Republic is not unanimous on the issue. The European Union and NATO membership presupposes commitments. But nothing is decided as yet. 

Michal Snobr, a nuclear energy expert, says if Russians win the bid, their clout on Czech energy sector will grow. And he sets the example of Germany that closely cooperates with Russia in this field. The analyst doesn’t think that Russia’s win will have a negative effect. 

Nuclear energy is going through hard times in the United States. Experts say the US is a whole generation behind in nuclear technology, be it fuel or reactors. By the 2030s, when the country is predicted to become energy self-sufficient thanks to shale gas production, all nuclear stations will be put out of service.

Now, let’s take a look at Rosatom. Russia is leading in plants construction abroad (16% of world facilities being built). At present, Russia is building two plants in India, two in Bulgaria, one in Iran. For the first time in the country’s history Russia launched at once two new reactors at China’s Tianwan nuclear power plant in 2007. It immediately made Tianwan the largest plant in China. 

There have been two intertwined events taking place in the country. The electricity has gone up almost twice for ultimate consumers. On October 2 2008 Nancy E. McEldowney United States Ambassador to Bulgaria, sent a secret cable to C. Boyden Gray, then U.S. Ambassador to the EU and a Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. The cable said, «With few hydrocarbons of its own, Bulgaria relies on Russia for seventy percent of its total energy needs and over ninety percent of its gas». The vulgar imagination of Ambassador made her see «Bulgaria in bed with the muscle bound duo of Gazprom and Lukoil is only partially true — it is a tryst driven less by passion and more by a perceived lack of options».

The copy of cable was sent from Sofia to the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. She wrote, «With the price of energy at near record highs, Russia’s hydrocarbon-generated wealth is increasingly circulating through the Bulgarian economy, making Bulgaria all the more susceptible to Russian leverage. An energy strategy that focuses on renewables and efficiency is one tool Bulgaria can use to put a noticeable dent in negative Russian influence». The Ambassador made the following remarkable revelation, «Though previously a net exporter of electricity, the EU’s decision to force closure of blocks 3 and 4 of the communist-era nuclear plant Kozluduy cost the Bulgarian economy over USD 1.4 billion and put a squeeze on Serbia, Macedonia and Greece, who had purchased the bulk of the exports». She recommended to diversify the energy supply sources as a means to fight the energy deficit (that is to curb the Russian supplies) and rely on US technologies offered by Chevron and Westinghouse. 

Since then the Bulgarian media launched a campaign against Russian gas suppliers (Gasprom), potential energy pipelines (the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project) and nuclear facilities (the Belene nuclear plant that was to be built by Russia's state energy company Rosatom). 

In February 2012 some Bulgarian mass media spread the information supposedly about the using of … uncertified steel at manufacturing of high pressure heaters for units No.5 and No.6 of Kozloduy nuclear power plant. Under the agreement for high pressure heaters manufacturing concluded in 2008, Closed Joint-Stock Company ZiO-Podolsk has manufactured and supplied to the Customer (Atomtoploproekt, Bulgaria) 8 devices for power units of Kozloduy facility. The ZIO – Podolsk is a part of Rosatom – Atomenergomash machine building division. 

The slander didn’t live long. Valentin Nikolov, Director of Kozloduy NPP, has also confirmed that «during the examination in the institute of Bulgarian Academy of Science the compliance of hardness and chemical composition with 22Кsteel has been proved». The concocted story ended there, but the anti-Russian libel campaign was gaining momentum. 

On March 28 2012 the Bulgarian People's Assembly supported the government‘s decision to abandon the Belene power plant construction plans with 120 «yes» against 41 «no» votes. In autumn 2006 Atomstroyexport was awarded the tender for construction of the Belene 2000 MW plant nuclear power by Bulgarian National Electric Company NEK. Somehow, nobody remembers that those days the European Commission said that Belene complied with the standards of power plants safety in Europe. Moreover, it was one of three best projects that were referred to as examples of Generation III reactors along with in Olkiluoto (Finland) and Flamanville (France). The European Union’s experts recommended building reactors with the same level of safety and reliability standards. 

Over 30 Bulgarian national companies involved in the project were to operate at full capacity and guarantee employment. The nuclear plant had an advantage of profitability; one kilowatt-hour was one and a half times cheaper in comparison with renewable energy sources, and five and a half times less compared to a kilowatt-hour generated by Bulgarian thermal stations. 

What made the government of Boyko Brasov abandon the core energy project? The answer is obvious: the pressure exerted by the United States. 

In 2011 the US companies AES and Contour Global acquired two Bulgarian thermal plants Maritsa Iztok 1 and Maritsa Iztok 3 investing accordingly $1.2 billion and $230 million into the facilities to make them operate at full capacity. The investments were to pay off. For this purpose the Americans lobbied the contract duration of 15 years. During this period of time the Bulgarians were to pay ever growing prices for the energy produced. The US did its best to avoid competition. Former Bulgarian energy minister said if Belene plant were built there would be no need for the US thermal plants in ten years. To the contrary, the withdrawal from the Belene project guarantees them a stable consumer demand. 

Hillary Clinton gave a warm welcome to the Belene abandonment decision that actually meant Bulgaria won’t get cheap energy generated by Russian plants. She emphasized the reliability of the United States as a partner. According to her, the oil and gas supplies were to be diversified (read – no Russian exports) and that a number of American firms are well-positioned to help. Still, many Bulgarian energy experts perceived the refusal to build Belene as a threat to national security. Former Minister of Economy and Energy Petar Dimitrov, a member of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), has come up with a warning that myopic following the outside recommendations didn’t meet the national interests. According to him, the country would have to import energy in 15 years. Dimitrov insisted that Bulgarian consumers would pay the price for the «irresponsible decision because the country would face the need to import electricity at tariffs that a majority of Bulgarians would find unbearable». The energy crisis would set in the following dozens of years. Bulgaria was doomed to be a victim of energy dependence and deficit that would diminish the population by one third till 2050. That is by the end of this time the population would be 3.5 million like it was by the end of Turkish yoke that lasted five centuries. Nora Stoichkova, a Bulgarian journalist, revealed the essence of the harmful decision. According to her, Bulgaria pulled out of the Belene project as a result of unprecedented pressure from the United States and the European Union…The US Ambassador to the country did not shy away from making media appearances even more often than the exclusively vigorous Prime – Minister of Bulgaria and outright lobbying of US Chevron and Westinghouse energy giants interests. Kolyo Kolev, director of the Mediana Polling Agency, delicately noticed that many Bulgarians realize the country may lose many economic opportunities following the US geopolitical interests. 

The US never stops brainwashing top Bulgarian officials. The rumors go around saying the former US Ambassador to Bulgaria James Warlick was called back because he was not up to par. He didn’t defend the US companies interests vigorously enough and let happened what was to be avoided at all costs: the Boyko Borisov government cracked under the public protests pressure for environment protection. In January 2012 Chevron was banned to use fracking on Bulgarian soil. 

The shelf drilling program was halted. According to Bulgarian media, Boyko Borisov received a behind the closed doors thrashing from Barack Obama while on a visit to Washington. Bulgarian analysts are sure the Prime Minister decided not to take part in the South Stream ground-breaking ceremony on December 7 last year under the US influence. 

Nora Stoichkova is sure the continuation of the Belene project would have prevented the wave of discontent. It was a real opportunity to bring down the costs and provide for cheap energy. She said the nuclear plant was a chance for low price electricity, new working places and industrial progress. As to her, the withdrawal from the Belene project was a great shame before the whole world. Now the investors know only US government friends have a chance to earn money in Bulgaria. 

True, the country has a narrow space for maneuver in the field of energy policy. First, the European Union membership makes it obligatory to make 16% of the sector use renewable energy sources by 2020. The prices went up last summer, because the investors were made to function under the conditions of preferences not oriented on market requirements. Second, the 20 years of pro-US policy dictated by some political circles makes the United States the most preferable nation. In comparison with other European Union members, Bulgaria is a poor country (an average wage is €385.5, an average pension is €138), it’s not easy to protect the national interests. Perhaps Bulgaria doesn’t even realize it has become a country with limited sovereignty as a result of the United Sates diplomatic pressure…