Croatia – Parliament divided over the Nuclear Energy Act

The Croatian Parliament concluded its discussion on the new Nuclear Energy Act on Thursday, which the Government presented as a key step toward energy independence. Although there is broad support for the nuclear option among most caucuses, the opposition sharply criticized the attempt to make strategic decisions without up-to-date economic studies, the settled issue of nuclear waste, and clearly defined locations.

The main point of disagreement is the lack of up-to-date data. Dalibor Domitrović (SDP) warned that a country that is not "financially powerful" is engaging in high-risk projects using studies from the last century. SDP announced abstention in voting, arguing that HDZ uses the energy sector for political purposes, while the energy network is deteriorating. Marin Živković from the We Can! coalition assessed the Government's deadlines to 2040 as unrealistic, noting that technologically more advanced countries need at least 20 years for such projects.

Geopolitics and regional relations: the Danube case

The issue of locations, which traditionally provokes the most opposition, was raised by Dragana Jeckov (SDSS). She reminded of historical studies of Dalj, Prevlaka and Vir, emphasizing particularly Dalj on the Danube. She posed a crucial question about the impact on the river and the necessity of dialogue with Serbia, warning that nuclear facilities must not be planned in minority-populated areas in a targeted manner without absolute transparency.

As expected: small modular reactors (SMRs) as the government's 'joker'

On the other hand, members of the ruling majority (HDZ, DP) and parts of the opposition (HSS-GLAS-DOSIP, HSLS) defend the law with the argument that nuclear energy has become "a low-carbon means of the future." Vesna Vučemilović particularly highlighted the advantages of small modular reactors (SMR) which, due to advanced cooling systems, provide greater flexibility in choosing locations. On the other hand, Anka Mrak Taritaš (GLAS) warned that such decisions are not made in six months and that the problem of nuclear waste disposal remains a "hot potato" that no one wants to solve.

National project or a decision of a narrow circle?

Damir Barbir (Centar) and Dalibor Paus (IDS) appealed that the nuclear program must become a national project with full public consensus, not a process led from Zagreb offices. While Darko Klasić (HSLS) believes that nuclear energy is a "necessary choice" because Croatia imports half of its electricity, the opposition concludes that without a clear link to the energy strategy, this law remains "a foundation without a building".

Local Variants

While at the national level the strategy is being debated, in local decision-making bodies there is also heated discussion, with a particular example being the issue of the future of Istria. Dalibor Paus (IDS) directly confronted Minister Šušnjara with the possibility that the Plomin Thermal Power Plant, under the guise of the legal provision changing the energy source, could be transformed into a small modular nuclear power plant (SMR) outside the current Spatial Plan of the Istria County. Paus warned that Article 139 of the Spatial Planning Act theoretically allows such a transformation without the consent of the local community, to which the minister did not provide a concrete answer.

Representatives from Istria emphasize that the Croatian Energy Development Strategy until 2050 does not foresee nuclear facilities on domestic soil, and that the attempt to create the impression of an "already made decision" is actually a conscious bypass of the democratic procedure and the absence of social consensus for projects that will define future generations.

Comment

What we notice is that the debate in Croatia is guided along almost the same axes as the one about other parts of the world: small modular reactors or large-capacity reactors, locations, spent nuclear fuel, the promise of converting thermal power plants. Some of these points, in our view, are completely superfluous. Therefore we conclude that converting thermal power plants into nuclear ones doesn't make much sense because it is not radically cheaper than building a completely new one, and we suspect that this option is being pushed in communities that depend on thermal power plants, as a shaky promise of the survival of industrial capacities. As for small modular reactors, we also remind that it is not certain that these technologies will be commercially competitive with large-capacity reactor technology, and that there are currently a huge number of projects globally but only a very small number of operating designs.