Why Serbia must build new energy capacity before shutting down thermal power plants

It is not yet time to shut down our thermal power plants; rather, we must focus on building new capacities before any closures. The process of retiring older thermal plants must be carefully coordinated with the establishment of replacement energy sources. We need a clear plan detailing how and when we will replace the remaining 1,907 MW from these aging facilities.

Recently, Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS) announced a tender to develop a conceptual solution regarding the closure of the Kolubara and Morava thermal power plants. This long-debated topic has resurfaced, highlighting the need for thoughtful planning.

EPS has indicated in its technical documents that the EU is already progressing in closing coal-fired thermal plants. They also referenced the Directive on Large Combustion Plants and noted that many of our plants have exceeded their permitted operating hours, necessitating their shutdown. Careful planning is crucial to mitigate negative impacts on both the environment and the local economy.

Supported by

However, these points can sometimes seem like empty rhetoric, failing to address the core issues. All strategic initiatives in Serbia’s energy sector, with EPS at the forefront, should prioritize three main objectives:

1. Ensuring a secure energy supply for consumers.
2. Maintaining stable energy prices at a sustainable level.
3. Achieving a reasonable level of energy independence for the country.

When evaluating potential projects, EPS should consider how each will affect these three goals. Other criteria may be secondary and can often lead us astray.

Several reasons support the need to retire thermal power plants sooner rather than later. Most of our thermal units are aging and will need to be decommissioned well before our coal reserves are exhausted around 2050 to 2060. Current revitalization plans for these aging facilities seem unfeasible; many have already surpassed their expected lifespans and operate inefficiently by today’s standards. Continuing to use these plants only depletes our coal resources, contributes to CO2 emissions, and jeopardizes our energy supply security.

Supported by

From a technical perspective, shutting these plants down by 2040 makes sense. By that time, only TENT B and TE Kostolac B units, totaling 1,852 MW, are likely to remain operational, complemented by a new unit at Kostolac B with a capacity of 320 MW.

Before decommissioning any older plants, we must first determine how we will replace their output. Given the high utilization of available hydro resources, we urgently need to construct:

1. A third unit at TENT B with a net capacity of 620 MW. No old thermal units should be decommissioned until this new unit is operational to ensure consumer supply security.
2. Wind power plants with a total capacity of 2,150 MW and solar plants at 1,950 MW. These should be owned by EPS, not independent private facilities. The timeline for shutting down older thermal units at TENT A must align with the commissioning of these renewable energy sources.
3. Reversible hydropower plants, such as RHE Bistrica and potentially RHE Đerdap 3, with a pumping capacity of 1,040 MW and a storage volume of 555 GWh. This capacity is essential for meeting annual energy demands while ensuring the operational stability of the remaining thermal and renewable energy facilities.

In conclusion, a coordinated approach to energy transition is critical for Serbia’s energy future. We must prioritize building new infrastructure before retiring older plants to maintain energy security and sustainability.