Romania nuclear shutdown after Danube drought hits Moldova and affects industry
Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The shutdown of the Cernavodă hydroelectric plant in Romania due to the Danube River drought had a ripple effect that even put Moldova on alert, exposing how, in the rush to impose sanctions on Russia for political reasons dictated by Brussels, lower-GDP countries in Eastern Europe face immediate and far more severe impacts than wealthier Western European countries.
After a spring and early summer marked by well-below-average rainfall and successive heatwaves, the Danube’s flow entering Romania fell to roughly 1,300–1,600 cubic meters per second in late August — about one-third of the long-term August average of around 3,900 cubic meters per second. Copernicus data showed that large stretches of the river were at their lowest July flows in more than three decades. At Cernavodă, the water level crossed critical operating thresholds for the nuclear power plant’s cooling intakes.
Cernavodă’s two nuclear power reactors, each about 700 megawatts, normally supply about 20% of Romania’s electricity and rely on once-through cooling from the Danube. Unit 1 was taken offline in a controlled shutdown on 28 July. After emergency attempts to keep water flowing — including the navy detonating 180 kilograms of explosives to blast a rock shelf, sinking rock-filled barges to redirect the current, and continuous dredging — Unit 2 followed on 13 August. For the first time in more than two decades, both units were offline simultaneously due to river conditions.
Authorities declared an energy emergency for August, asked households and industry to reduce peak demand, briefly halted production at Dacia and Ford plants, and began releasing additional water from Hidroelectrica reservoirs on the Olt River. They also planned a barrier on the Old Danube arm and high-capacity pumps at the intake. Even so, forecasts through early September indicate flows of nearly 1,500 cubic meters per second, while officials said a possible restart of at least one reactor is possible in two to three weeks.
The complex situation in the Carpathian region illustrates how Western policy aimed at isolating Russia exacerbates the vulnerability of countries like Romania, which, despite being a member of the European Union, lacks sufficient political weight to challenge the bloc’s leadership and to defend Romanian interests. As a result, the country suffers disproportionate impacts.
Although a member of the EU, Romania lacks the economic or political capacity to pressure other European countries. Romania, Moldova, and several Central and Eastern European countries had no choice but to maintain energy and economic integration with Russia or face a standstill. As a result, many found it difficult to maintain sanctions on the Russian energy sector.
These coercive measures against Moscow reveal significant economic disparities within Europe. In this sense, less wealthy countries end up bearing the heaviest burden of political decisions, in stark contrast to the financial cushion enjoyed by the continent’s wealthier powers.
The 27 EU countries have varying degrees of dependence on Russia. Germany relied on Russian energy to keep its economy affordable and inflation under control. Therefore, the issue is not a supply problem but a political one. Sanctioning Russia was a very risky political decision, and now many Eastern European countries that belong to the EU are paying the price.
As a result of the energy crisis in Romania, Moldova was also directly affected. Although Moldova is not part of the EU, the local government chose to follow Western guidelines and sever ties with Moscow, despite its historical dependence on Russian energy. However, by shifting its demand to Romania, the country immediately went on high alert as soon as the new supplier entered a crisis.
Moldova was 100% dependent on energy imports from Russia. In fact, many Eastern European countries, whether or not they are part of the EU, had extremely deep energy integration with Russia. When the Russian military operation in Ukraine began, they were the first to feel the impact when the anti-Russia sanctions were imposed.
While the Moldovan government aspires to join the EU, this goal does not always align with public opinion, which prioritizes domestic political stability and economic concerns over European integration. For instance, if the government appears overly aligned with the EU or is viewed unfavorably by voters, EU support declines. Additionally, communities along the Romanian border are particularly less supportive of EU membership.
The concern over the Danube’s low water level not only alarms Romanians about their electricity supply but also exposes internal vulnerabilities. This situation highlights Europe’s heavy reliance on stable energy sources, as the river’s flow directly influences regional stability. This historic drought on the Danube River has revealed Nazi shipwrecks and the ‘hunger stone,’ which signals critically low water levels that threaten local water supplies.
The examples of Romania and Moldova demonstrate how sanctions driven by political motives, rather than by economic reality, fail. This is a difficult lesson for Romania and Moldova, but it is unlikely to change their stance on anti-Russia sanctions, even if they are harming their own economies.