Good morning.
I'd like to welcome the head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Mr. Grossi.
I'd also like to welcome all the ministers,
chairmen, and other high guests.
Today's event is intended to address,
calmly and before the campaign gets underway,
the question of our nuclear energy future
in Slovenia and beyond.
We'll see if we're about to experience
a nuclear renaissance and what that will mean
for our future energy needs.
I'd like the debate to be
as dispassionate as possible and not focused
on the upcoming referendum campaign,
which will begin in two weeks, so we'll have enough time for it.
Today, I'd like for us to examine all the aspects
of Slovenia's decision and which issues
still need to be addressed.
First and foremost, I'm interested in our opportunities.
Everyone agrees that we need to prepare
for the climate crisis. Even worse, we've all
been affected by the crisis, especially Slovenia
over the past two years.
That's why we can't bury our heads in the sand
and ignore our responsibility
to begin using technology
wherever that technology can be of use.
Nuclear energy is a part of the solution
to the climate crisis, not a part of the problem.
That's why it's crucial
that we have a clear position
and that we approach this technology responsibly.
After all, Slovenia is already a nuclear energy country,
one of 33 such nations, which means we have
a responsibility to the world, not just to our people.
In the end, our decisions will also affect
the wider region and beyond.
I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Grossi,
and then each of you will get an opportunity
to express your views. Those wanting to speak
can raise their cards, so I'll be able to see you.
Go ahead, please.
Good morning. Thank you for giving me the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for inviting
the International Atomic Energy Agency,
to take part in the important dialog that is underway in Slovenia.
You, Europe, and the world are at an important crossroads.
We're facing numerous challenges, some of which you mentioned.
Allow me to present my view
of the issue and to listen to you.
I'll also try to answer any questions you may have.
I'm thrilled to be here today.
I'm Argentinian, and as you know,
there are many Slovenians in Argentina. They've set up
an important community there
and are an important part of our society.
As a diplomat working in Vienna,
I also covered Slovenia and I have warm feelings
toward the country.
As for the issues up for debate today,
it's true that we're in a very complicated period here in Europe
and internationally.
We're facing
a number of challenging issues at the same time.
We once again have war in Europe. There are tensions
in a region that isn't that far from Slovenia.
There is a chance that the conflict could spread
and that it will have a significant effect on Europe
and the world.
International peace and security are facing challenges.
At the same time, we're facing an energy security crisis.
This is something we didn't face just a few years ago.
We didn't deal with it, even though
we did address certain aspects that required
the attention of world leaders like yourself.
These included global warming and climate change.
These challenges and issues are all critically important
for our societies, our communities.
The security situation
has underscored the urgency
of our decision making. We need to make decisions
that will ensure economies in Europe
and around the world
sustainable growth.
At the same time, we need decisions
that will enable us to maintain our authority
and independence
in terms of the energy mix.
You brought up Slovenia's experience.
It's true that Slovenia is a nuclear country.
The story of nuclear energy in Slovenia began in the 1960s.
An experimental reactor was set up first.
Then, in 1975, you introduced
Westinghouse's reactor at Krško.
For almost half a century, the Krško Nuclear Power Plant
has operated flawlessly, without any major
technical problems. The plant is working exceptionally well.
This is something you're aware of in Slovenia
and you can be proud of it. This also enables you
to plan for the future. We'll get back to this.
I'd like to share a few thoughts from a global perspective
about how we see the nuclear debate and the role of nuclear
energy in that debate.
The changes were fast and even dramatic.
Even a few years ago,
debates about nuclear energy
were extremely complex. They're still complex,
but those of us active in this sector
have always known that the debate
is not always based on technological and scientific
arguments and facts.
It was often too heavily influenced
by arguments that had little to do with facts.
Once people perceive something as a bad thing,
that perception can be difficult to change.
Nevertheless, things have changed quickly.
A few months ago, at the COPP conference in Dubai,
where the term "nuclear" was,
until three or four years ago, a real taboo,
and you couldn't discuss nuclear energy at all
or you were booed if you tried, well, at the Dubai COPP,
it was said that nuclear energy
needs to be expedited. More than 190 countries
that took part in COPP felt that way.
It wasn't just 33 nuclear countries, but rather 33 plus 130
or even more countries that wanted
to expedite the spread of nuclear energy.
I'd like to emphasize that we support
the use of renewables. Renewable energy is the key.
It needs to be promoted, but only renewables
are not enough.
They're not enough to solve problems
in the energy sector, problems that await us.
This is the mental framework
that must enable us
to have a credible debate. We're not isolated.
We're not sitting in some ivory tower.
The situation is clear.
As a European country, Slovenia has an eye
on its neighborhood and the EU.
We can hear an important message here as well.
Until just a few years ago, debates in Brussels
were complicated. You know via your representatives
and ambassadors what they looked like.
Within the framework of a European hierarchy,
the Commission had to request,
the Joint Research Center, the EU's highest scientific
and technical consultative body,
to pay more attention to nuclear energy
and to determine whether nuclear energy has any specific
downsides that would require it to be pushed aside
and treated separately from other energy sources.
The Joint Research Center prepared an extensive report
on this subject.
The report states that nuclear energy
doesn't have any specific drawbacks or downsides
that would require it to be excluded from the Green Deal.
In fact, the JRC even feels
that this is an appropriate energy source that should be utilized.
I'd like to add
that even today, people tend to forget the facts.
Even before the curve begins to point upward
with all the projects now considered,
including those in Slovenia, even now,
one half of clean energy produced in Europe
comes from nuclear sources.
We're taking about one half, 25% of all energy
and half of clean energy.
If we take a broader view
and look at the entire world, this represents 25% of clean energy,
even though it comes from just 30 nuclear countries.
This is a technology...
...of such energy.
I hope I'm not
misleading, or rather burdening you
with these numbers.
In the U.S., 20 percent
of clean energy comes from nuclear sources.
These are facts that you should consider
when analyzing which decisions are reasonable and rational.
Europe is your home and where you make your decisions.
When we look at the Global South,
the situation there is even clearer.
Nowadays, China, which is one of the main problems
in terms of fossil fuels and pollution,
is placing its bets on nuclear energy.
We're talking about more than 30 existing reactors,
24 reactors under construction,
more than 20 projects being built in China right now.
This will increase the share of nuclear energy
from five percent today to 10-12 percent.
Then there's India, where the trend is the same.
And Russia. They have about 30 nuclear reactors
and are building even more. Then we have Latin America,
Argentina, Mexico, three large economies.
As you can see, the connection is perfectly clear
in all parts of the world.
Other countries are also embracing nuclear technology.
Mr. Prime Minister, who would have thought that
even Gulf countries would want nuclear energy?
They have a lot of gas and oil, so why should they opt
for nuclear energy?
In the United Arab Emirates,
there are four nuclear reactors. A few years ago, there were none.
They have no research reactor,
but they built four nuclear power plants in ten years
working with Korea.
About 30% of their energy now comes from nuclear energy,
and they're exporting gas.
We're now working closely with Saudi Arabia.
They also want to set up a major nuclear program.
That's the trend we're taking about.
Africa. For many years, South Africa was the only
country there with a nuclear power plant, but Egypt
is now building three large nuclear facilities
with Russia's help.
Turkey, a NATO member.
Four nuclear power plants with Rosatom's technology.
So what am I talking about?
Is this a nuclear revolution? No.
However, we're seeing a clear trend in this direction.
There are various reasons for this.
Each country and sub-region
is following its own reasons and factors.
We can discuss this later if you wish.
Globally speaking, we're seeing a clear trend.
Other countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa...
You know that the IAEA has, among other things,
the responsibility to help countries with what
we call breakthroughs.
We help them using 19 steps.
I'll mention what the UAE did. The country decided to use
the so-called "User's Manual"
to find out what it needed to do regarding national legislation,
the national regulator, public tenders, stakeholders,
and so on. We're currently working also closely with Senegal,
Kenya, Ghana, and several other countries
that are seriously thinking about entering...
Before I wrap up, I'd like to mention some new trends
in the field of nuclear energy that are just as important.
These include small modular reactors.
They already exist in Russia and China.
There are several different technologies
that already have approval, particularly in the U.S.
We're talking about new frameworks
that operate in terms of terawatts.
Some others are still being developed,
including by Rolls Royce in the United Kingdom
and France with its Nuward project,
important on a European scale.
Our Korean colleagues are developing the Smart project.
Even Argentina is working on small modular reactors.
The interesting thing about all this
is that over the next five to eight years, this trend
will probably result in more small modular reactors
in Canada and elsewhere around the world,
including Europe.
This is a technological solution that is, at the moment,
at odds with the history of nuclear energy,
a technology that follows demand.
Big IT companies, lik Google and Microsoft,
and companies working with AI,
want the sector to provide more and to be accelerated.
As you know, we are dependent on data centres.
Our economies, education systems, everything depends on data.
And data centres and hubs use immense amounts of energy.
They need to be fed with energy without destabilising the grid.
With small modular reactors
we are talking about à la carte nuclear energy.
This is a completely new
and extremely interesting direction of development.
Many European countries
are already focusing on creating their own data centres.
They are turning to us, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
asking us how they could implement
small modular reactors in their systems.
This is also important in desalination.
In light of the number of droughts
and the things we are seeing happening in our atmosphere,
we need to desalinate water.
We need to use seawater to enable sustainable agriculture.
Desalination, as you know, is extremely energy-intensive.
Many countries in the Gulf and in Africa
want to use nuclear reactors for this purpose as well.
I could list even more examples.
Next year, our agency will implement a new initiative.
It is an initiative in the field of shipping energy.
8% of global emissions come from supertankers
and similar large ships.
This sector is already thinking ahead.
Not about the next 5 or 6 years, but about the next 50 years
and what will happen with the shipping industry.
They also stand to gain much
from small modular reactor technology.
Prime Minister, I believe this is a very important moment for you.
Nuclear energy needs to be considered
as a technology with a very significant competitive advantage.
Consider 50 years of the safe utilisation of nuclear energy.
You will make decisions on your future.
I recommend doing so hand in hand with the IAEA.
You will take bold steps.
You will ask the people what they want regarding their energy future.
You must show them that you are cooperating
with an international institution that has no commercial interest.
It is not a lobby,
we are an institution with approximately 180 member states,
and our interest is to see things going the right way,
and this is also the right way for you.
These are my general observations.
I would also like to hear your analysis on how you will proceed.
I will listen to you, your suggestions and criticisms,
and if I can provide any sort of input on your topics,
I will gladly answer all of your questions.
Thank you, Director General Grossi, for your opening address.
To tie into his closing statement,
at this time, Slovenia really is ahead,
precisely because of our rich and positive history
with the operation of our nuclear power plant,
which, during its entire existence,
has been regarded as one of the safest in Europe.
This culture of safety surrounding our nuclear power plant
is something we can rightly be proud of.
Slovenia also has extensive experience in working in energy
with a mix of energy sources.
Not based on only a single source, but a mix of them.
What Director General Grossi said about global trends proves
that the whole world is heading in the same direction
that Slovenia set out in 50 years ago,
and it is sensible that it continues to do so.
I would like to add that every project,
especially such a large one,
which will have a wider impact beyond just Slovenia,
needs to be carried out thoroughly,
based on facts and, mainly,
in partnership with the proper institutions.
So, we appreciate the offer
and our cooperation with the IAEA so far.
We believe that this cooperation provides additional credibility,
as well as an assurance that the project has been set up correctly.
Now I would first like to give the floor
to the Minister of the Environment, Climate and Energy,
Minister Kumer, who will present our energy plans.
And then we can open the debate for everyone.
Thank you, Prime Minister. Greetings.
Allow me to first greet our guest,
the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Welcome to Slovenia. We are very honoured by your visit.
Colleagues, ministers, state secretaries and other guests,
the purpose of my very short presentation
is to show you the plans that our Ministry is devising.
Let me briefly say
that Slovenia has done well in the past two years
and made a smart move by forming a line ministry that combined
climate, sustainability, mobility and energy policy
into a single department, giving it clear responsibility
to devise long-term, independent energy-climate policy.
And this is no longer a thing that causes problems
for every government's Prime Minister,
but is, in a way, an inter-coalition problem.
This way, we can devise more ambitious policies
in a more synergistic way.
Before you is a diagram from a draft
that has already undergone public consultation and review.
It is currently still in the draft
of the National Energy and Climate Plan.
The government intends to adopt it
by November or mid-December at the latest
and send it to Brussels for approval.
Here we see the retrospective energy mix of Slovenia,
of which we can be very proud.
This is the so-called 'one-third mix'. In the past,
Slovenia got one third of its energy from renewable sources,
followed by coal and some natural gas, represented in grey,
and the dark orange represents nuclear power
from the Krško Nuclear Power Plant.
The thinner one of the two curves
represents final electricity consumption,
while the thicker one represents gross electricity consumption.
simulated for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023,
as well as projections of the mix until the end of the year.
This government has aggressively pursued three policies,
short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures.
Of course, we were slowed down somewhat
by the energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine
but we have made significant strides in removing administrative barriers
to the implementation of renewable energy sources,
focusing primarily on solar and wind power.
And, as some of you may already know,
last year Slovenia connected to the grid
as many solar power plants and megawatts
as in the previous 20 years combined.
I this regard, Slovenia was, per capita, at the top in the EU.
We will continue with this policy,
as we aim to build Slovenia’s self-sufficiency
based on renewable energy sources as soon as possible,
in order to replace fossil fuels. At the same time,
we are also planning an expansion of the nuclear programme.
Slovenia can be proud of its excellent nuclear programme,
which produces oustanding energy results.
Slovenia has been successfully developing this programme for years.
Before you is a schematic of all the components of the nuclear programme,
from the agency that manages nuclear waste
and the fund designated for the decommissioning
of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant,
to all stakeholders directly involved
in the nuclear programme itself.
For Slovenia to have such a good nuclear programme,
we had to reach several milestones in the past.
1966, the year we first had
a research reactor at the Jožef Stefan Institute,
and 1981, when we connected
the Krško Nuclear Power Plant to the grid.
The Krško Nuclear Power Plant
has operated stably, reliably, and safely for over 40 years.
Last year, we also successfully extended
the power plant's life by 20 years, to 2043.
Our ambitious plan is to further extend its life
by another 10 or even 20 years.
Another important milestone, and this government's achievement,
is this year's adoption
of the Resolution on the Long-term Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy.
This is a political document, a clear strategic guideline
on what Slovenia's energy future will be based on.
Perhaps a few more words and numbers
about our success story, based on the Krško Nuclear Power Plant.
The current power output has already exceeded
the initial 670 megawatts to 727 megawatts,
and it has 630 employees.
It is a PWR reactor,
which is American, Westinghouse technology.
Another unique thing about it
is that it is owned by two countries,
half by Slovenia, half by the Republic of Croatia.
Slovenia supports all efforts,
both at the national and the international level,
regarding nuclear initiatives, programmes and energy.
Slovenia is an IAEA member state,
as well as a signatory of last year's COP initiative
to triple nuclear energy capacities
and an active member of the alliance within the EU
that actively participates at every meeting of energy ministers
regarding the development of the nuclear programme.
As I said earlier, our future, like our past,
is based on a mix of nuclear power and renewable energy sources.
Slovenia and Europe are oriented toward defossilisation.
We will need to transition from coal
or natural gas as a transitional energy source
to a decarbonised energy mix.
We are devising short-term, medium-term and long-term measures.
The most important long-term measure
is starting up and seriously managing the project,
like the expansion of our current nuclear capacities,
by which I mean the second reactor unit in Krško.
What has been done so far?
I would first like to say that we have an important milestone ahead,
on 24 November, Slovenia will hold a referendum
regarding public support for the second reactor unit.
Naturally, we are hoping for a positive outcome of the referendum,
so we can go ahead with the strategies
that have already been devised.
We adopted a resolution this year.
GEN energija, as the current investor,
is preparing an initiative for the national spatial plan,
which will mark the official commencement
of the siting process for the nuclear facility.
Regarding the timeline, the ideal scenario
is for the investor to reach their final decision
five years after siting the facility.
Of course we would like to shorten that timeline, but we are realists.
Many more analyses and calculations will be needed
for the investor to reach their final decision.
We expect that we will then be able
to acquire a building permit within four years.
The government will have to work very proactively
with all of the stakeholders
to remove the obstacles in siting the facility
where we know those obstacles exist.
The construction itself is expected to last seven years
and we are planning for the unit to operate for over 60 years.
For Slovenia, the second reactor unit is absolutely crucial
and the highest priority of the government's strategic project.
It is included in all of Slovenia's energy and strategic documents.
It is also supported by the Spatial Development Strategy.
In line with the outcome of the referendum,
we will update the necessary documents where required.
That is all from me for now,
but I will of course be here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister.
I see no one has asked for the floor.
Yes, go ahead. Pfeifer.
Gorazd Pfeifer, Chairman of the Board
of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant.
Greetings, Director General and Prime Minister.
I will continue from where the two of you started.
I was just at the WANO General Meeting,
where the Director General of the IAEA also gave a speech.
I would like to emphasise the importance
of cooperating with international organisations
like the IAEA, WANO
and other such agencies and institutions.
Slovenia is known for actively engaging
and participating in these organisations.
I can speak for the Krško Nuclear Power Plant,
which is a very active member of WANO.
WANO's findings from last week show
that the nuclear industry is expanding worldwide.
We play a significant role in preparing the new world,
the new countries,
the newcomers who are introducing new units and new technologies,
not only for the regulatory foundations
but also for operational fundamentals.
In other words, we have an important task
in preparing these new power plants
and new electricity producers using nuclear energy
for what it means to operate such facilities.
We have a good 40-year history,
we are responsible and respected
in these organizations and the whole nuclear program
you mentioned is so widespread
that we are seen as competent negotiators
and contractors in the whole world.
Therefore, I think
that we have to use it. Not everyone has it.
A lot of them are beginners regarding this technology
and I think we should follow these guidelines.
Thank you. -Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Paravan. -Hello.
Dr. Dejan Paravan, CEO of Gen energija.
I also want to stress the safety and performance experience
we have with nuclear energy in Slovenia.
This is the advantage we have to build on.
It is especially important if we want
to develop our country in the right direction
regarding decarbonization
and our energy independence.
We cannot forget Slovenia is importing all fossil fuels
and we do not have a refinery. We are importing natural gas
and we do not have a storage for it. When producing electricity,
we are geographically limited
and this is why the combination of renewable sources and nuclear energy
can bring at least some energy security
to our citizens and industry. We are also preparing
a new project. As it has already been said,
we are expecting the final investor's decision in 2028.
This will be important. Until then, we have to do a lot of work.
In preparing for this project, we have to consider the experience
which is the consequence of the fact that in the past years,
we have been focusing too little on nuclear energy.
Luckily, this has turned around.
There are certain risks when building a plant
which is why we have problems finding financial sources for it.
I want to ask how the IAEA
is helping with these challenges, how can it help Slovenia
which is a small country and the project
will affect a broader region and will be important for it.
A lot of countries around Slovenia are not counting on nuclear energy
and therefore, such a plant in our system
is worth so much more. The second question
is regarding new technologies.
SMRs are definitely a very important opportunity
for the future. They are solving the problems
I was talking about before, but they have a long way to go,
as you said yourself. This is one of the biggest obstacles
with spreading of SMRs. It is connected with licences
where your agency can make important steps forward.
If we want to ensure plants are economically efficient,
we have to standardize
licensing globally,
not just in a certain country. I want to know
how you see this,
how real is the possibility
to reach a standardized licensing of SMRs.
Do I answer right away? -Go on.
Thank you for your comments and questions.
They are important questions.
The first part of the question
is about the possibilities and problems
countries are facing
with financing and other aspects as well.
We often see it as Achilles's heel
when building new nuclear facilities.
To some extent,
governments are competent regarding nuclear energy,
but the IAEA can help. We have started dialogues
we have not had before. We are talking to financial institutions.
In the past,
there were certain restrictions
in international financial institutions
when financing nuclear technology.
We can start with the World Bank.
I met with Mr. Ajay Banga
who was a businessman himself
and is questioning these restrictions.
This happened because of ideology
and other things, but now we are cooperating with the World Bank
and other institutions.
The world cannot go in one direction,
but at the same time, banks that should support the countries,
do not follow that. This is unimaginable.
The countries said they wanted
and have to accelerate the development of nuclear technology
together with renewable sources,
but they cannot finance these projects alone.
With the taxonomy accepted in Europe,
we have avoided the worst.
We need country-specific solutions
and they have to be passed by governments.
The IAEA can help with this.
We have all the information
about what is going on
and how the countries are dealing with all these aspects,
tariffs, price adjustment mechanisms,
green bonds, how they are using different instruments
that will be available to you as well
to carry out projects such as the second nuclear power plant.
The IAEA is ready to help.
In the neighbourhood, I will not mention any names,
they are asking us how to do this.
This does not mean they will listen, but they are asking.
With the second question, you really hit the nail on the head.
You mentioned SMRs
and issuing permits for them.
Before I became the CEO of the Agency,
I had worked very closely with the industry,
with the public and private sector.
In the past, the IAEA was more limited,
but I decided to talk to the sector.
When I met with the CEOs of companies
within the nuclear industry,
we were talking about the permits as well.
The current system of issuing permits for SMRs
is not adequate. It is not acceptable
for the process to take five, six years.
SMRs are not a revolution,
they are an evolution.
SMRs are a technology where you can turn to different providers
and buy a module with a capacity, let's say 10 MW,
depending on your needs. This means
you need a leverage effect and financing.
SMRs are based on new technology,
but they depend on the politics as well.
Slovenia is cooperating in the NHSI project,
Nuclear Harmonization
and Standardization Initiative.
When we started the initiative, we invited a lot of parties.
In Europe, you have regulators, agencies
and they have them in America as well.
They are convincing each other which is good.
In politics, you always have to talk to the other side,
but here, they have not been doing it.
WANO and other international nuclear organizations
have not been talking to each other. They wanted to be independent.
The concept is very simple. We have to connect people.
This is the concept of the NHSI.
Some regulators say, and I do not blame them,
they are responsible.
This is the state's competence. We decide on the conditions
for things that are as technologically delicate
as nuclear energy.
I think this is a smart approach,
but the span coming from it,
connected with it, is huge.
We are talking about issuing permits.
The American regulator for issuing permits
has a significant role and when we are talking about the span,
we can do a lot. NuScale has a model
that has already been licensed
and has a permit. If we look at Slovenia
or Ghana, for example. Let's forget about Slovenia.
Take a look at some other country. Any regulator
can learn from American regulators
and accelerate the process
three or four times. This is what the NHSI is about.
Do not be afraid to discuss this,
cooperate with the sector, connect it with the regulator.
With the help from the IAEA, we can see
how far we can go. Our first priority is safety,
but safety
cannot be the only factor.
Safety is the prerequisite and not a factor.
Our will to do something is the factor,
but we have to consider safety requirements when doing it.
We have been talking to regulators all over the world. We are friends.
I can openly talk to them.
In the past, everything was problematic.
As you know, we can see
risks and dangers everywhere in life.
We can fall down the stairs, a bottle can fall on our head.
There are risks everywhere. I realised
we are not ambitious enough. This is what we need,
but we need a strict regulatory supervision.
It is important how we regulate new nuclear energy.
It cannot be freely available and free for everyone,
but in the 21st century, we have to adapt the rules.
We cannot work in the same way
as we did in the previous century.
Is any area still regulated in the same way as in 1970?
Nuclear energy.
We decided to start different processes.
The next NHSI meeting is taking place in three weeks.
We are making progress, countries are more relaxed,
the regulators have been talking and exchanging opinions.
They are ready to move forward faster.
Thank you. Mr. Sirc, go ahead.
Sorry. Igor Sirc, Nuclear Safety Administration.
I want to stress
a great relationship Slovenia has with the IAEA
in the nuclear safety area.
Nuclear safety is the necessary prerequisite,
but it is not self-evident. It is one of the pillars
on which the IAEA works.
I want to thank Director Grossi
for understanding the IAEA role and importance
as an international organization when providing
the necessary basis
to ensure a high level of nuclear safety.
I want to stress the Agency's role
in building the competences in this area.
Slovenia has been actively cooperating with the Agency.
On one hand, our experts
have been training in programs the Agency is offering
and on the other hand, we also share our knowledge
which is very important.
Our comparative advantage has been mentioned a couple of times.
We have a lot of knowledge, but we realise
we have to educate ourselves further as well
and here, the Agency plays a role as an international organization.
The other important aspect are international standards.
Here, I want to mention the NHSI.
I was very much in favour of this initiative and still am.
It is a great initiative that goes in the right direction
of unifying standards.
The IAEA standards are an important source
for our legislation as well.
I want to stress the IAEA role
to unify the standards
and raise the security level throughout the world.
I want to thank you for realising
this is the right moment, for acting swiftly
and in my opinion, this is going in the right direction.
I ask you to continue with this process.
There are a lot of open questions regarding new technologies
on all three S's, safety. security, safeguards,
and any effort on unifying standards is more than welcome.
The Agency is also the knowledge management protector
and the hub for exchanging experience and knowledge.
I already said Slovenia has been actively participating in this.
Here, I would mention international missions,
which are services of the agency.
Minister Kumer has mentioned the service INIR.
Maybe, it would interest also you CORR.
Construction Readiness Review service.
Certain services will be interesting for Slovenia too.
And our experts are also cooperating at other services around the world.
I would like to thank you. I count on future cooperation
between international agency and Slovenia in the field
of ensuring the highest nuclear safety. Thank you.
Thank you. If nobody in the first row wants to...
Then we will cross over to the second row.
We will return to the first row later.
First, Mr. Plut.
Dear all, thank you for inviting me.
I find it great
that we talk about such an important topic as is the energy future
of the world, Europe and Slovenia in a way
that other opinions can be heard
regarding the nuclear energy.
First, I would like to repeat, what I have already said
on the Commission's meeting in the National Assembly.
I am really and sincerely thankful to all people,
who have been ensuring that the Krško nuclear power plant is safe.
This goes for the whole team, long-time director of the power plant
Mr. Stane Rožman and Agency for Nuclear Safety.
I think everybody is happy, even those of us against nuclear power,
that the Krško nuclear power plant is working safely.
We want this in the future as well.
My reflections regarding the safety of the nuclear power is different.
From the middle of the 1980s,
when the accident in Chernobyl happened,
I oppose the nuclear power use,
mainly because of peaceful and military atom bonding.
Until the world has nuclear reactors,
there will be production
and waste or spent nuclear fuel,
which is a raw material for making of nuclear weapons.
In the world we are living in,
we can't think about nuclear safety only from the microlocal view,
but from the view of ensuring safety for everybody on this planet.
Second thing, the nuclear energy use
and use of all other sources of energy
has undeniably negative effects on the environment.
I repeat, even the use of renewable energy sources
has negative effects.
In the world,
where we are surpassing the tonnage of the planet by a double,
as far as energy use, raw materials and space are considered,
we should ask ourselves first, even here today,
whether we can afford to spend energy even further.
The first task of the state, citizens, companies and everybody
should be, what we can do to reduce the energy use.
To say it differently, we should talk today mainly
about megawatts and not about even bigger production of energy.
I believe this is very important.
But it demands big changes.
Changes in our life styles
and this civilizations has come across
the planetary environmental restrictions for the first time.
But it doesn't comply with them. I am appalled.
Because I'm worried about the fate of my children, grandchildren
and of next generations.
Can we set our development so egoistically
that we are destroying the conditions of existence for next generations.
This is an important question. I know these words sound illusory,
but you will see it
at the end of our generation and the first half of 21st century,
we will leave a toxic and risky planet for our posterity.
On the account of excessively increasing the profit
and on the account of increasing the assets of individuals.
I will end with this, because I'm getting frustrated
and I hope you will forgive me for this.
Please, we are about to vote.
What would I want as a citizen of this state
that I personally worked for its independence? What do I wish?
I would want mainly this
that before polling, Slovenian citizens
get acquainted with both possibilities
in a balanced and equal way.
With nuclear energy future and non-nuclear energy future.
Present debate is distinctly...
As well as support of the media and finances is distinctly unequal.
Money went mainly for supporting the projects for nuclear energy.
I think that the state and government should support also those
who are advocating another path.
Why? The citizens should have a possibility
of responsible decision-making.
This can't be provided in one month.
I appeal to all Parties, to the Slovenian government
to postpone the polling for half a year or one year ahead,
so we can have this discussion.
The decision is important for the whole civilization.
It's not just a question of nuclear energy
and I think that the citizens absolutely deserve this.
One last thing.
A question for the Prime Minister.
He supports solar energy as well.
I read his articles and have quoted him in my works,
because I find it important.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask him.
How do you figure that Slovenia would fulfil
international and European commitment
about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for 55%
until the year of 2030.
If there is a nuclear plant 2,
built in best case scenario, as you have written and said,
after the year of 2040, if the trend doesn't change a lot,
as we've seen today. So, I believe,
that the Krško nuclear power plant doesn't serve the purpose
of fast decarbonisation of Slovenia,
because it will be build too late.
All right.
Yes, Štokelj. -Hello president of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mr. Prime Minister and everybody in here.
I am Tomaž Štokelj, the director of Holding Slovenske elektrarne.
First, a word about energy use.
I agree that we have to reduce the energy use,
but we have to know that electrical energy is the most noble
and its use will increase. There will be a decrease in use
of petroleum, gas and coal.
We expect an increase in electrical energy use and we need new sources.
We support the development and use of the nuclear energy.
We won't be developing a new nuclear plant,
maybe we will cooperate with it later,
but we are concentrating on SMRs.
With the Ministry and GEN energija
we are cooperating in the project Phoenix,
where we are searching options to use the existing energy locations,
where the coal plants were already or will be shut down.
How can we use these locations for SMRs.
There are quite a few questions here and I ask Mr. Grossi for his view.
I know this is unsavoury,
but on one hand, we have a problem with licences,
on the other hand the locals find it hard to accept new technologies.
We are talking about placing this facilities in urban areas,
near the settlements, where we have certain restrictions.
Mr. Grossi, when will the technology be developed enough,
tested and accepted by the citizens
that we can count in Slovenia to have the first SMRs?
You have the most information and are probably the most objective.
Thank you.
Thank you. Before the answers, we can talk some more.
First, Kus, then Gabrič.
Thank you very much.
Zoran Kus, general public.
First, Dr. Grossi, thank you for your interesting lecture.
Dear Prime Minister and Assembly,
I would like to ask something Dr. Grossi,
but I need a little background first.
You mentioned that last year at the climate summit in Dubai
22 states adopted a commitment
about triple increase in nuclear energy capacity till 2050.
This number is very high. I will mention just a few numbers.
22 states that have signed this commitment
have approximately 270 gigawatts of nuclear capacity,
which means 270 reactors.
If we want to triple this number,
we would need to have a capacity around 800 gigawatts.
This is additional 540 reactors.
If we take into consideration
that in 25 years some of the reactors were shut down,
they should be stopped because of age and other reasons,
this is additional 100 reactors.
This means that until 2050 these 22 states should build
new capacities for 650 nuclear reactors.
In 25 years, this is 26 reactors per year.
One more thing. In the past 25 years,
these 22 states built only 12 new nuclear reactors.
And around 55 reactors were shut down.
My question for Dr. Grossi.
Do you think the number 26 reactors per year until 2050 is realistic?
If yes, how? And if not, which number is realistic?
The history shows that in the last 25 years we had a negative balance
in these 22 states. Minus two reactors.
Thank you for your answer.
Thank you. All right.
Please.
Easy questions.
First, what Mr. Štukelj said,
after that I will address the numbers you have mentioned now.
Very important fields. Regarding the SMRs
or small modular reactors, the technology development
and as you've said, the acceptance of them by the general public.
As far as the maturity of the technology is concerned,
I believe we have reached it. Our problem is licensing,
the acquisition of licenses, which is very important.
We made some important steps and the biggest controller NRC
has already given the permits for certain models.
This is very important.
They gave them green light, which shows that this path
is possible and achievable. I'm not worried about that.
As far as local population is concerned,
I would now look at the process, we are working on at the agency
and I believe that in Slovenia
we can share this experience.
We are trying to establish the alliance
of the nuclear municipalities in the world.
Namely, local communities that have nuclear power plants
and for a long time, nevertheless. For many generations.
These are people
who are in my opinion the most
realistic and have the biggest moral authority
to talk about these technologies. They live with them.
A lot of people talk about this technology without experiencing it.
We made or invited...
We will hold a big conference about it in Vienna.
We will talk with mayors, city halls.
So, not with the high political representatives,
but municipalities with laboratories or nuclear power plants.
In our experience,
these people are very enthusiastic
and they talk in favour of these technologies, because they see
the effect of the technologies on their local communities.
They have 50, 60 years of experience
with activities that people are just making up.
For example, that you will get cancer because of the power plant
or that babies will be deformed.
We've heard such statements. People talk such things.
We have decided to invite these people
and let them talk about their experience with the nuclear energy.
How has local community lived,
hosted a nuclear facility.
I believe this is the most solid way,
how we encourage the acceptance by the local community.
If there is a village with 20,000 people
that can relate with the experience of people from a similar village,
it makes a much bigger impact than an important speaker
or a power point presentation.
We have good experience in this field.
These are very important votes.
We have to understand people
with the opposite beliefs, which is important in democracy.
But our experience is
that there were two places in Sweden competing
to get a long-term depot
for storing the radioactive waste. Can you imagine that?
These two places were well-informed
and they made a campaign for the dumping ground.
They got the information from Finland.
They saw, how many jobs were obtained because of it.
They saw the numbers. I am not a lobbyist in the nuclear field,
but I want you to hear the experience of the local communities.
Maybe you can think about involving
Slovenian local communities
into this alliance of local communities.
For example, we have a local community from the Netherlands,
but also ordinary people from Brazil, from Rio de Janeiro.
We have already started with this initiative.
Mr. Kos, you have given some interesting statistics
as regards the tripling,
this is a very important commitment,
for the tripling of the construction of nuclear power plants.
This is an initiative of the countries
that wanted to go in this direction,
and, of course, you can do the mathematical curves
where you can see that you would have a hard time achieving it.
In the 1970s and 80s, this has already happened in Europe.
Maybe the accelerated construction will happen again in the future,
I don't know. In France,
they have issued quite a few licences for nuclear power plants,
this is also happening in the USA.
This is not happening on Mars, it's happening here, in our world.
But a big challenge will be what you also mentioned,
we have built very few nuclear power plants in the previous decades,
and the effect of that is,
for example, that the supply chain has been reduced,
because people are doing other things.
If they don't build nuclear power plants,
they turn to oil, gas or import electricity.
Let me mention something you have forgotten.
The workforce, engineers, and nuclear professionals
have a problem that we're discussing.
Because in some countries we have a deficit of professionals,
of nuclear engineers that we need.
China and India
want to get these nuclear engineers.
I'm persuading my children to study in this field
because the demand is really incredible.
More important than knowing that you're going to get to that point
is that you have clear policies, clear directions.
If you have a regulator who knows the plan,
who knows the direction you are going,
then the whole story is turned on its head.
If we're saying that nuclear power is dying,
that in 20 years we'll forget about Krško because we'll close it down,
that's one side of the story. But if we have another story,
that we're going to build a new nuclear power plant,
that we would like to have small, modular reactors as well,
then, of course, the business atmosphere changes.
Slovenians will start to cooperate with the French
and with other countries, let's say Italy, your neighbouring country.
Italy doesn't have a nuclear power plant in Italy,
but they are cooperating with other countries that do have one.
This is starting to happen.
With respect, I wouldn't be so focused
on whether or not we'll achieve a tripling
or whether it will just be a doubling of construction.
The projections of the International Energy Agency
say that there will be a 2.5-fold increase.
We are now lower, our agency has published its projections,
and the results show that there will be a doubling.
In my opinion, it's not so much a question
of achieving exactly statistically accurate figures,
but that it's a direction
which will, of course, change the whole narrative,
so that things will start to move forward.
Gabrič.
No. First Gabrič and then Valenčič.
Dear Prime Minister, thank you for the opportunity
to speak to Director Grossi,
and for inviting the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
to participate in this debate.
My name is Melita Gabrič and I'm State Secretary at the Ministry.
I will be brief, I have just one point to make.
From the point of view of our international activities,
I would like to emphasise our full support
for the five principles and the seven pillars
of nuclear safety and security.
We will ensure that we continue to support these guidelines,
we are active in international forums
and we will continue this in the future.
We're doing this on the basis of what the Prime Minister has emphasised,
on the basis of our positive,
even excellent experience with nuclear safety.
As some of the other speakers have also pointed out,
we have this good practice and we want to highlight
and share it internationally,
so we look forward to working closely with the Agency
and with you personally in this area. Thank you.
Thank you. Please.
Matjaž Valenčič, the Ecological Movements Alliance.
I'm honoured to be here.
Nuclear safety is our common goal.
But the word 'safety' has several meanings,
some people also call it a challenge.
We can't condone that, safety must be a priority.
There should be no shortcuts.
I'm also referring to the forced referendum,
where we will decide without proper data.
This forced referendum could be a safety risk.
Let me repeat the appeal of Prof. Plut,
we need to reflect on whether we'll choose a shortcut or safety.
Thank you.
Rožman.
Thank you for the floor.
I would like to make a brief comment on all that we have heard,
based on the conviction, of course,
that nuclear energy is part of the solution
to the challenges that the world, Europe and Slovenia are facing today.
It's part of the solution in terms of global warming,
it's part of the solution in terms of
ensuring affordable electricity prices in the long term,
and it's part of the solution in terms of supply stability.
Starting from these facts,
it's of paramount importance we all focus
on implementing the ambitious nuclear energy and new build plan
as efficiently as possible.
This means that we, and above all the Agency,
need to work intensively with the key stakeholders in this process,
the financial institutions.
Their views need to include innovative financing approaches,
something has already been said about that.
We also need to work intensively with industry
to make them aware of their share
in the efficiency of project implementation.
Their seven-year timelines for implementation are unacceptable.
We'll be happy and we'll achieve the objectives
if the industry is in a position to offer projects
that will be implemented at least in four years.
I think that part of the industry is already approaching this capacity,
but this means the efficiency of the projects.
If the projects are implemented efficiently and quickly enough,
then the financial sector will also look at these projects
in a completely different way
and ensure the availability of its resources and financing.
We also need to aggressively work with the regulators.
This has been mentioned before.
In terms of harmonising the regulatory framework
and in terms of simplifying the processes and the approach.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already begun
its own effective transformation.
We haven't seen this in Europe yet.
These are the three spheres, the financing,
the effective implementation of projects,
the effective regulatory process,
all of which can lead to the realisation of the objectives
that we have all set ourselves
and that global and European energy policy
has set itself to accelerate
the use of and the construction in the field of nuclear energy.
I can also agree with the points that have been made.
We need to change the way we live.
Yes, but changing the way we live
means higher electricity consumption.
Lower energy consumption, but higher electricity consumption.
All the processes are being electrified,
many of them have already been mentioned.
There should be no dilemma
whether we need more sources of electricity.
And there is no dilemma, at least not for me.
The electricity consumption is going to grow.
So I'm appealing to the Agency,
which has been extremely successful,
to sharpen its focus and intensity of work in these three areas,
so that there really is a transformation of the whole system,
and to enable projects to be carried out efficiently. Thank you.
Thank you. We're running out of time,
I'll allow two very short replies.
First Snoj. Okay, that's it. Please. Be short.
Thank you, Luka Snoj, Jožef Stefan Institute,
the largest research institute in Slovenia,
the only in the field of nuclear power.
We have a long history of excellent cooperation with the IAEA
in the field of research reactors and researches.
The nuclear expertise in Slovenia started at the Jožef Štefan Institute
and later developed with the construction of the nuclear reactor.
Today the Institute is an important part of the social infrastructure
which supports the safe and efficient use of nuclear energy.
The nuclear power plant is a major facility
that has existed in society for more than a century,
and in order to face great challenges ...
The last century was full of great sociological turning points.
100 years ago, this society, this country was completely different,
and the only way to face this is through research and development.
I have a question for both the Prime Minister and the Director.
Where do you see the role of science and research reactors
in the nuclear renaissance?
In 1980, Europe had 300 research reactors,
today there are only 30. That's the first question.
The second question for Director Grossi ...
Today we are obviously facing a construction cramp,
which is partly due to the over-regulation of this industry
compared to others,
we're in a very unequal position with other technologies.
For example, I'm the head of the TRIGA research reactor,
for me it's a million times more dangerous to go to work by bicycle
than to work on a reactor, which is one of my safest activities.
This is a little provocative, but could you consider
a completely different treatment of nuclear technology in society?
As with medicine and pharmaceuticals,
where the benefit has to be greater than the harm.
Nuclear energy will definitely address climate change,
nuclear energy will allow a rise in the standard of living,
it will allow a lot of people to use low-carbon and stable energy.
Without nuclear energy, people will die of other things.
Is it possible to radically change
the philosophy of the treatment of nuclear energy,
or at least treat it the same way as other technologies? Thank you.
Okay, and now ... Yes.
Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Director General,
I will switch to English, this will probably be faster
and more efficient.
Thank you for inviting me, I'm Leon Cizelj,
a researcher at the Jožef Štefan Institute.
I have also recently been appointed professor
at Harvard University engineering programme in China.
This is the largest nuclear technology education programme.
I would like to pick up on some of the points
about communication across borders.
I agree with that, Luka Snoj mentioned science,
and science can help enormously.
First, we need to look at regulation,
the regulation at NEK is based on science,
and that is why it works so well.
Now that science has been somewhat excluded,
things are more problematic. Science can also help
in discussions with many different stakeholders, communities.
Science can also help in getting the required manpower,
we need a well-educated, skilled workforce.
When it comes to tripling nuclear capacity,
we're also talking about a tremendous need
for additional educated manpower
and the nuclear alliance will only deliver
150 GW of energy.
Who will work in these institutions,
who will take the lead in the infrastructure agreement?
Let me mention infrastructure.
I would say that the infrastructure
in a country that has a nuclear power plant operates differently
from the infrastructure in a country
that is just building a nuclear power plant.
In many aspects. Can we hear something about that? Thank you.
Just a few observations on your last questions.
Mrs. Gabrič, I would like to thank you for your support.
So, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Slovenia, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council,
has a very important role to play,
also because of the world-wide situation.
From time to time, I'm called upon to talk to the Security Council,
to brief them. Thank you for your words,
and I have also talked to the Prime Minister about this.
Mr. Snoj and the Professor, as far as regulation is concerned,
you have heard my words before,
of course, there is a need for that,
and certainly, you're having good discussions with the regulators here,
but we have to move away
from the mentality that things are impossible
to the mentality that they are possible.
And also what is possible.
Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your invitation,
I think this is a very exemplary meeting
which we need to continue in other countries,
open discussions to also highlight different views,
we're particularly interested
in the views of those opposed to nuclear energy.
I think this is very important.
I'm very active, for example, in Asia,
as far as the problems
that have happened after Fukushima are concerned,
I'm talking to the Chamber of Commerce in Japan,
to ordinary people
who have been directly affected by this.
And they deserve answers,
and so do the Pacific Island countries,
who, of course, have fears about pollution because of Fukushima.
These are fishermen, workers, ordinary people,
who, of course, don't have a high education,
but these people need to be taken seriously and listened to.
I would like to thank you,
to commend you for organising such a meeting, such a debate.
Today I have learnt a lot from you. But, of course, our work continues,
our energy is always available to you, I hope you know that.
Thank you for your attention.
I think that the debate has shown very well,
on the one hand,
what the opportunities are that nuclear energy
can provide for the decarbonisation of our planet,
and on the other hand, all the concerns, the fears
and all the challenges that we have to respond to
if we want to see nuclear projects anywhere in the world,
including Slovenia, carried out efficiently.
There is a lot of work to be done if we want to reach this stage.
We're not there yet.
So I would like to address two questions.
Firstly, how nuclear energy will help decarbonisation.
It's not a short-term measure,
we have to meet the targets by 2030 without nuclear energy,
and we will meet them without nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy will help Slovenia to be able
to fully decarbonise the energy sector by 2040.
That's the target that nuclear energy has to help meet.
Secondly, the referendum as such
is not aimed at a final decision on the nuclear power plant.
There's no doubt about that. The final decision
can be taken in 2027, maybe 2028,
when we will have all the answers to all the challenges
that have also been raised today by the experts
who have been involved in nuclear technology all their lives.
When we get these answers, this will take a couple of years,
not only in Slovenia, but on a global level,
we will be able to take a final decision.
If we want to be ready to get on this train in 2027,
we have to invest in it,
and the referendum is precisely about
whether Slovenia will be actively preparing,
by investing in the project documentation,
by investing also in the research activity
and the training of human resources,
which has to take place before the final decision can be taken.
Whether we're going to invest significant resources,
resources in excess of 100 million euros.
That's why we're having this referendum,
because we want to know whether this option is something
that our citizens believe to be a realistic option.
We're going to decide on the feasibility of the project in 2027.
What I can announce today, and I will take this opportunity,
is that if we have a positive result in the referendum,
Svoboda will immediately submit an act
on the preparation of the NEK 2 project.
We will take it all to the legislative level,
because that's the only way
if we want to get closer to getting the project done efficiently.
And so that we don't repeat the story of TEŠ 6.
I would like to thank everyone, especially the Director General,
for being with us today.
I think he has highlighted many dilemmas
that we still have to resolve.
I believe that, together with the international institutions,
and the other countries that are working on this,
we will be able to do this in the years to come. Thank you.