An independent analysis by the Slovenian NGO Youth for Climate Justice has raised significant concerns about the economic feasibility of constructing a second unit at the existing Krsko nuclear power plant. The report suggests that while the project may not attract private investors due to limited financial returns, it could still hold strategic importance for the state if profit is not the primary objective.
The study examined the proposed expansion of the Krsko nuclear power plant, focusing on its financial viability. From a market perspective, the investment appears unlikely to generate sufficient returns to interest private sector involvement. Even from the government’s standpoint, the financial outlook is weak unless the project is treated as a strategic infrastructure investment rather than a profit-driven enterprise. By pricing electricity at breakeven, the state could potentially gain long-term benefits such as enhanced energy security, reduced carbon emissions, and minimal environmental disruption.
Youth for Climate Justice stressed the need for at least one neutral and thorough economic assessment of the project. The NGO emphasized shifting public discourse away from political disputes and business agendas toward a comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation. Following a political stalemate after a failed referendum, the group commissioned its own detailed study and developed a new project management proposal.
The analysis produced four key conclusions. First, it confirmed that attracting private capital for a second Krsko unit is unlikely due to low profitability, though state funding could be justified on strategic grounds. Second, the report recommended establishing a new governance model specifically designed for large infrastructure projects, citing past challenges such as cost overruns and scandals with unit 6 at the TPP Sostanj thermal power plant, which despite starting operations in 2016 is now facing early closure.
Another important recommendation was to evaluate two national energy strategies before moving forward: one based entirely on renewable energy and another combining renewables with the proposed nuclear unit. The authors argued that comparing these approaches would provide clearer insight into whether Slovenia should accept low financial returns and proceed with the nuclear expansion or pursue alternative solutions with greater advantages.
While the report has been publicly released, a wider discussion is scheduled for 18 June in Ljubljana, where stakeholders will have the opportunity to explore the study’s findings and implications in greater depth.
