"Serbia will be forced to build nuclear power plant"

While nuclear power has a lot of benefits, it also has a lot of negatives. The main being cost, and nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plant project in the world has come in on schedule and on budget. In England, Toshiba and Hitachi have both walked away from building two nuclear power plants due to the high costs and high risk. Financing is impossible to get from normal commercial sources. If England can’t build and finance such projects, it would be naïve to think that Serbia has better resources to succeed.
Many European countries are shutting down their ageing nuclear power plants due to high costs to refurbish them. There are cheaper renewable options that should be considered, namely wind and solar. These technologies allow for small incremental plants to be built close to the end user. This enables the generation and demand to be matched without the need to build expensive transmission lines. Also, once built these transmission lines will require ongoing maintenance and upgrades which add another layer of cost. Nothing is free in this world except for air and sunshine.
Having worked as a design engineer in the nuclear power industry for close to 30 years, I would caution anyone contemplating investing money in a nuclear reactor. It is a very, very expensive technology that only the G8 countries can afford. Even they are moving away from nuclear power. Beware of the experts. The English have a saying that goes, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller emigrated to America. The progress that would have prevented Chernobyl, had he gone to the Soviet Union, was made in the late 1940s by him and his Reactor Safeguard Committee:

"... But reactors that are both water-cooled and graphite-moderated can have a particularly dangerous flaw. The Hanford reactors that were built during the war ... contained so much graphite that water had no further effect in slowing the neutrons. Therefore, loss of water in the cooling system of the wartime Hanford reactors resulted in the capture of fewer neutrons and thereby increased the fission process. In such a reactor, if one pipe loses water, the neighbouring pipes overheat, which converts the cooling water to steam, thereby forming a void in the cooling system, which in turn increases the fission, thus producing more heat and more steam–a situation that continues until the reactor explodes [2] ...

... [2] The RSC recognized that danger, called a positive void coefficient, before 1949, and information about that design flaw was disseminated throughout the world by 1955.

Very good insight from Graham. I still think the nuclear energy is the cheapest and safest one. French people are not stupid. Modern technology in this field allows a safe use of it. How safe it is we can debate on this but nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to hydrocarburs. Will never replace them on full scale but they are two options that can compete with each other. All the other ones, solar panels, wind centrals are more expensive and can't replace old good nafta.

Very good insight from Graham. I still think the nuclear energy is the cheapest and safest one. French people are not stupid. Modern technology in this field allows a safe use of it. How safe it is we can debate on this but nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to hydrocarburs. Will never replace them on full scale but they are two options that can compete with each other. All the other ones, solar panels, wind centrals are more expensive and can't replace old good nafta.

While nuclear power has a lot of benefits, it also has a lot of negatives. The main being cost, and nuclear waste disposal. No nuclear power plant project in the world has come in on schedule and on budget. In England, Toshiba and Hitachi have both walked away from building two nuclear power plants due to the high costs and high risk. Financing is impossible to get from normal commercial sources. If England can’t build and finance such projects, it would be naïve to think that Serbia has better resources to succeed.
Many European countries are shutting down their ageing nuclear power plants due to high costs to refurbish them. There are cheaper renewable options that should be considered, namely wind and solar. These technologies allow for small incremental plants to be built close to the end user. This enables the generation and demand to be matched without the need to build expensive transmission lines. Also, once built these transmission lines will require ongoing maintenance and upgrades which add another layer of cost. Nothing is free in this world except for air and sunshine.
Having worked as a design engineer in the nuclear power industry for close to 30 years, I would caution anyone contemplating investing money in a nuclear reactor. It is a very, very expensive technology that only the G8 countries can afford. Even they are moving away from nuclear power. Beware of the experts. The English have a saying that goes, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller emigrated to America. The progress that would have prevented Chernobyl, had he gone to the Soviet Union, was made in the late 1940s by him and his Reactor Safeguard Committee:

"... But reactors that are both water-cooled and graphite-moderated can have a particularly dangerous flaw. The Hanford reactors that were built during the war ... contained so much graphite that water had no further effect in slowing the neutrons. Therefore, loss of water in the cooling system of the wartime Hanford reactors resulted in the capture of fewer neutrons and thereby increased the fission process. In such a reactor, if one pipe loses water, the neighbouring pipes overheat, which converts the cooling water to steam, thereby forming a void in the cooling system, which in turn increases the fission, thus producing more heat and more steam–a situation that continues until the reactor explodes [2] ...

... [2] The RSC recognized that danger, called a positive void coefficient, before 1949, and information about that design flaw was disseminated throughout the world by 1955.