TPPs in the Maritza Iztok complex can switch to natural gas or hydrogen, but production will be low efficient

Mr. Manchev, in your opinion, how is it possible for hydrogen technologies to be introduced in Bulgaria and in the Bulgarian energy system?

Before we get to hydrogen technology, we need to make a clear energy balance for the country. And energy balance means not only electricity, but also everything we burn as energy - natural gas, oil that is processed to diesel and gasoline, wood that people burn in their stoves, and various other fuels that we use. I'm talking about propane-butane, for example.

And so we have to make a simple calculation to know what we have to decide. At the moment in the electricity mix of the country we have about 40 million MWh per year - that is the consumption of the state. Of these, slightly less than 20 million MWh is more or less "clean energy" - produced by Kozloduy NPP - about 15 million MWh, that of HPPs and other RES - about 4-5 million MWh

The other part of the energy in the mix comes from various fuels, including the burning of garbage, which must be controlled under another law and order in our country. A large percentage of this 20 million MWh is actually coal combustion - that's about 18 million MWh in the energy mix.

Bulgaria also burns about 3 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year. In these 3 billion there are about 32 million MWh And if we burn these megawatt hours, they will emit between 6 and 7 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

And for these total 20 million MWh, of which we burn coal and natural gas, we emit in the atmosphere annually in the range of 25 to 28 million tons of CO2. And this is because of the poor quality coal we burn.

In part of the burning of garbage, we do not emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. But there, the combustion emits other more dangerous gases, half the Mendeleev table, which is even more dangerous for humans. This combustion must be further purified.

At the Lukoil refinery, we process, as far as I know, about 4 million tons of oil a year. And that contains about 45 million MWh And when we finally collect them, all energy producers receive about 110-120 million MWh per year. When we add the wood and briquettes that people burn, we will reach approximately 140 million MWh that we use. Well, the task of our country is whether we can replace these 140 million MWh with some clean fuels. Including replacing natural gas, because it is not completely clean.

With blue fuel, we have between 6 and 7 million tons of CO2 and it will burden the price of natural gas. And if we accept today's price of 25-30 euros per ton of harmful emissions, then the cost of natural gas will be about 200 million euros. And this sum will be distributed on the price of natural gas. It is quite foreseeable that these emissions, which occur even with the use of natural gas in the household, include this environmental ingredient, which must be paid for. And these funds must be collected by gas companies and returned to the state to address environmental issues.

It should be clear to people that there should be a tax on the price of natural gas because of the pollution. And here we are not talking about excise duty, but about a fee.

And then a little summary, we see that out of all that 140 million MWh, or even 150 million MWh, if we forget to add something, we will try to see what and how to solve it as a task. From this amount we understand that we have about 20 million MWh of clean fuels, where we do not have to do anything. However, action is needed for the remaining 120-130 million MWh

By logic, we know that from 1 kWh of electricity we can get 0.8 kWh of hydrogen, in which combustion produces only water vapor. This is the view of humanity to replace fossil fuels in order to make the fuel system of transport, energy facilities and households quite clean. If we decide to replace all 120 million MWh of consumption in order to be able to produce that amount, our country must have 150 million MWh of capacity somewhere. This must be something that has been transformed - 120 million MWh to produce you must have a very large amount of electricity.

However, if you have 10,000 MW, they will produce 80,000 MW per year. That's why you have to have about 15,000 MW to produce only hydrogen. And our base energy capacity at the moment is about 5,000 MW.

And because of this I have an obstruction to people who think that only with RES we will solve our problems. Because solar power plants can produce a maximum of 1,400 mWh per year. And if we want to make 120 million MWh of annual production with them, then we have to install 100,000 MW of solar capacity. Where to put so many panels?

Wind farms produce about 2,000 mWh per year. We don't have many windy places. And to achieve change, we need to have 70,000 MW of wind farms.

And when we add all these numbers, we're actually solving an equation. And on top of all that, we get a substance, hydrogen, for which we have to build an infrastructure that we don't even know how much it would cost. Certainly this hydrogen infrastructure needs to be built to be used in the automotive sector, in air transport, and in other industries.

Is this realistic?

Therefore, I personally believe that the main engine for solving a large part of our Green Deal are the projects Belene NPP and the construction of Units VII and VIII of Kozloduy NPP. Not to mention that more power is needed. And this is at least to replace our base plants, to get a little more energy. And the question is not where we will store this energy, but how we will make and store hydrogen through these capacities. Why do I focus on electricity generation from this type of source? Well, because first you can regulate this source of energy continuously, 24 hours a day. And you don't have to wonder where to export electricity from production. Hydrogen is a type of fuel that is produced plus the supply of the necessary electricity for our economy, called the economy of Bulgaria.

Therefore, it is not correct to think that we should also have a big energy consumption. The purest way to extract hydrogen is by electrolysis. It can also occur in other installations - from hydrogen sulfide in oil cracking, from natural gas, but in these ways CO2 is released. These are different species classified as brown hydrogen (produced by cogeneration) and blue hydrogen.

I understand that nuclear power plants produced white hydrogen.

Why is this hydrogen "white"?

Because they do not include it in emission-free energy. Because if they include nuclear power plants in zero-emission energy, all opponents must start paying huge fees for the clean energy that these plants produce. For example, Kozloduy NPP produces 15 million MWh per year and saves 12 million tons of CO2 per year. So someone has to pay our NPP 300-400 million euros extra because of the saved emissions. And so even the dirty energy produced by the Maritza TPPs will be replaced.

Even so, our country will be more or less balanced and there will be no need to close coal facilities. But we will not move forward either, because we will continue to burn this coal.

Yes, nuclear energy has its drawbacks - there is waste for recycling, but this waste is becoming less and less. And the most difficult issue is spent nuclear fuel, but it is also solvable. This is a source of electricity for 4th generation reactors - fast neutron reactors. Such reactors are still working today, there are features of these reactors that need to be mastered. There are already several such reactors in the world - in India, France, Russia in the United States. But they must be mastered as technology.

Of course, the greatest breakthrough for humanity will be if thermonuclear fusion is mastered. For the time being, a lot of efforts are being made in this direction, because this will resolve the issue sharply. Thus, the fuel now used for the reactors, uranium oxide, will be replaced by thorium. And there are reserves of thorium on Earth for over 2000 years. And with such thorium reactors we will produce a huge amount of energy, through which to obtain the other clean fuel - hydrogen. This way we will be able to use it adequately, but also not to get severe explosions or other incidents with hydrogen. It is still an easily flammable gas, but technically it will be mastered as a technology. And that will be very soon. We also have sources that can provide energy for extracting large amounts of hydrogen.

The existing infrastructure needs to be upgraded a lot to transport hydrogen, right?

New infrastructure needs to be built, it cannot be transferred to the existing one. At the moment, hydrogen can be added inside the gas pipelines, but a small amount - about 10 to 15%, but I can't be exact in the numbers.

This will increase the calorific value of natural gas, and when it is burned somewhere, the harmful emissions will be reduced. For example, in Bulgaria the harmful emissions from the used natural gas will be reduced from 6-7 million tons per year, to 3-4 million tons for example. This is good, but harmful emissions will still remain. This, in turn, can help make the transition process with the addition of hydrogen longer.

That is, if we want 100% hydrogen infrastructure, we have to build a completely new one? Isn't this very expensive, and Bulgaria is not even a gasified country?

Just because we're lagging it doesn't mean we shouldn't start working.

What about jumping over the pipeline and switching to hydrogen?

If we skip, then we will go back. We will not make progress, but we will lag behind catastrophically. Benelux, for example, already has projects with pipeline systems to transport hydrogen to large consumers. Such are, for example, the glass industry, metallurgy, chemical industry, although part of the nitrogen fertilizer plants natural gas cannot be replaced by hydrogen, because the fuel there is also a raw material.

In 2050, we can achieve almost zero-emission energy, but we cannot achieve a zero-emission economy.

However, in agriculture, animals produce enough carbon dioxide.This is the life we cannot kill. We humans also emit carbon dioxide when we breathe.

There are problems to be solved for humanity. China has already set itself the ambition to be CO2-free in 2060. China! The country that has a huge amount of coal power plants and coal reserves. This should be a pretty strong signal to the rest of the world that they need to take matters into their own hands.

Hydrogen technology is now being developed in China. They have many buses that run on hydrogen cells. I've seen them in China, but for a population of 1.5 billion, if there are 100,000 buses, that's almost nothing.

The construction of hydrogen infrastructure and the production of this fuel requires effort and investment. Shouldn't this be enshrined in the new energy strategy in some way?

When many experts and institutions participate in a wider composition and besides the government, even from the European community gather. And when they all start thinking, as at the beginning of our conversation, and we come to the conclusion that we need to replace 140-150 million MWh of energy, then only then will we start with the right decisions - which first and which second we need to replace.

Otherwise, the first thing that will be replaced is the cars to be clean and the energy to be clean. Then, or in parallel, the question of what fuel to use factories and industry will be decided. Scandinavians, for example, try to burn only hydrogen and produce pure steel. Yes, this steel will be 30% more expensive today, but it will preferably be bought because it is clean. And this is a very important point that one must take into account.

That is why there is no purer variant in which, apart from electrolysis, we can obtain hydrogen and oxygen.

Are there any such installations in Bulgaria?

All power plants in our country have similar installations. At Kozloduy NPP as well. In the Maritza TPPs, the generators are cooled with hydrogen. The generators themselves must be cooled and this is done with hydrogen.

So it is clear how hydrogen can be extracted, but from 1 kWh of electricity you get 0.8 kWh of hydrogen. If this hydrogen is used in an energy production plant, even in the most modern steam and gas power plants, where the efficiency is 63 - 64%. Thus, the energy produced by 1 kW of hydrogen combustion will be about 50% more expensive than the energy produced by Kozloduy NPP, for example.

The final product is increased by 50% when receiving energy from hydrogen.

We in the Maritza Iztok region can process the plants to switch to natural gas. This is a transitional period until we start adding hydrogen and reducing harmful emissions. We can achieve pure combustion of hydrogen in these power plant units, but their efficiency will be even lower. And there will be reached by at least 70% price increase. The reason is that the efficiency of the units will be 40%.

At Kozloduy NPP, for example, the cost of production can be around 3 eurocents / kWh. At Maritza TPPs, the production will be around 5.5 eurocents / kWh. But the investment needed to process the units to switch to natural gas will be at least BGN 3 billion. And then the price will go over 10 eurocents / kWh.

And when we talk about the investment in Belene NPP, it is 10 billion euros. The cost of electricity is 350 million euros to get this electricity: or about 2.5-2.7 eurocents / kWh. This price includes everything - from construction to decommissioning and storage of spent fuel, contributions to funds and salaries of employees. This will be the price if the investment is not included.

And the state, if in place, then can afford a longer transition period in which to afford a longer return on investment of 30 years, for example. Thus, the price of electricity will be, for example, about 4 eurocents / kWh. And the private investor will look for a faster return on investment than 15 years. And then the price of electricity can be 6-7 eurocents / kWh.

At the same time, our country must balance the price of fuel in the network and balance the energy system. If we do not produce energy in the middle of the country, there will be no way for the Dispatch Office to regulate the energy system. It is impossible with sun, wind and fog. We cannot cover Maritza Iztok Mines with photovoltaic panels just to get things done. We can also invest in a lot of storage batteries, but they also cost money. Should we buy 5000 MW batteries? Don't they also have maintenance, cost money and we also have to supply them with electricity from somewhere?

And what about carbon storage systems?

This is too expensive. This cannot be stored, but must be disposed of underground. And the effect of its storage and decomposition underground is not yet fully understood. In the United States, for example, the results so far have been deplorable.

The investment to make systems for capturing carbon dioxide and converting it into some stable condition takes between 6 and 8% of the efficiency of power plants. And if the construction of desulphurization plants costs 1.5 million euros per unit, so does the construction of a carbon capture system. And when you add to that the reduction of efficiency, things are not going well economically.

For now, Bulgarians will continue to burn wood. At the same time, the energy mix is expected to be based on nuclear power plants, renewable energy facilities and hydropower plants, and later on hydrogen capacity. Do I understand correctly?

It will still be difficult to reach the village houses and the wood will remain there. Therefore, in the years to come, pellets will have to be made in order to reduce harmful emissions as much as possible. The rest of the state must make a huge effort, not to lie to the people, but to train them.

When new technologies are offered, the state must be honest with the people and tell them that the given product of BGN 2 will become BGN 5. Not to explain that it is clean and good, but to forget to say that it will become more expensive. This is the dishonest thing that happened with the boom of RES power plants a few years ago. And then we explained how we should add money to the Duty to Society component. And this in general, because we could not explain the changes for political reasons. That's how we started to torment our economy, and it can't develop.

In fact, we increased the price of medium and high voltage, not the citizens. And the difference between high and low voltage is a factor below 2. In Germany, the factor (the difference in prices) is 7. So there is nowhere to get the money to solve infrastructure and other issues. In Germany, for the last seven years, they have increased the price of their electricity by 13 steps - from 196 euros / MWh for citizens to 300 euros / MWh But they did it in 13 steps.

It's just that people in our country need to be explained how much it costs. The bad thing is that in the small settlements and in the mountains a part of the wood is stolen. This is a topic that needs a lot of training and education of people. You can hardly make a poor person environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, we are poor but we are trying to talk about ecology.