ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Darius Pocevičius
Darius Pocevičius

2010 m. gruodžio 6 d. Vilniuje vyko tarptautinė konferencija „Baltarusija ir Lietuva: atominių elektrinių statybos grėsmės ir perspektyvos“. „Greenpeace” aktyvistas Janas Haverkampas skaitė pranešimą "Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos".

1 of 13
THE BALTIC NUCLEAR PHASE-OUT Risks and Chances Ir. Jan Haverkamp Greenpeace EU policy campaigner dirty energy [email_address]
Nuclear Baltics
Nuclear Phase-out VISAGINAS No investors – KEPCO out LV, EE, PL interest doubtful No financiers 3500 – 4500 €/kWe BELARUS Finances will be difficult Public and international resistance KALININGRAD Largest chance Strategic investor? Does Germany dare?
Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Safety VISAGINAS Design? EIA: too low source term Regulatory (in)experience Skills BELARUS Near Vilnius Design? Regulatory inexperience KALININGRAD No public scrutiny No international EIA No EU regulatory standard
Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Security VISAGINAS Design? Political long term stability? BELARUS Political instability? KALININGRAD German nationalist extremism? Cold war? Vulnerability grid
Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Waste VISAGINAS Legacy Ignalina No suitable underground No suitable technique Lack of stable financial structures Nothing in EIA BELARUS Idem KALININGRAD Idem Transports to Russia
Risks of Nuclear Baltics – Energy Security VISAGINAS No proper Energy Strategy based on scenario comparison Danger of stop on development until on-line Danger of coming in saturated market – threatening RE inv. Inflexible grid development Barrier to RE development Dependence on nuclear fuel politically unstable countries Lack of sufficient back-up BELARUS and KALININGRAD Idem
Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Economics VISAGINAS 3500 – 4500 €/kWe FOK – increasing costs and construction time Regulatory inexperience Too high debt for country Lack of means for RE and EE BELARUS Too high state debt KALININGRAD Russian political weapon Price Participation strat. inv.
Advantages of Nuclear Baltics none except for short term interests nuclear elite
Chances of a Nuclear-free Baltics Potentials www.inforse.org/europe/VisionBaltic.htm
Energy Security No dependency on foreign fuel Decentralised technology – no large scale disruption More spread ownership Economics Long term: lower costs More employment Spread financial risks Chances of a Nuclear-free Baltics
Policy Needs Now Get realistic: stop nuclear plans Work out different energy policy scenarios Re-focus human and financial capacity to EE and RE Social-economic plan for Ignalina / Visaginas Region Full transparency in the debate (Aarhus / ACN process)
[email_address] Thank you for your attention

More Related Content

Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

  • 1. THE BALTIC NUCLEAR PHASE-OUT Risks and Chances Ir. Jan Haverkamp Greenpeace EU policy campaigner dirty energy [email_address]
  • 3. Nuclear Phase-out VISAGINAS No investors – KEPCO out LV, EE, PL interest doubtful No financiers 3500 – 4500 €/kWe BELARUS Finances will be difficult Public and international resistance KALININGRAD Largest chance Strategic investor? Does Germany dare?
  • 4. Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Safety VISAGINAS Design? EIA: too low source term Regulatory (in)experience Skills BELARUS Near Vilnius Design? Regulatory inexperience KALININGRAD No public scrutiny No international EIA No EU regulatory standard
  • 5. Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Security VISAGINAS Design? Political long term stability? BELARUS Political instability? KALININGRAD German nationalist extremism? Cold war? Vulnerability grid
  • 6. Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Waste VISAGINAS Legacy Ignalina No suitable underground No suitable technique Lack of stable financial structures Nothing in EIA BELARUS Idem KALININGRAD Idem Transports to Russia
  • 7. Risks of Nuclear Baltics – Energy Security VISAGINAS No proper Energy Strategy based on scenario comparison Danger of stop on development until on-line Danger of coming in saturated market – threatening RE inv. Inflexible grid development Barrier to RE development Dependence on nuclear fuel politically unstable countries Lack of sufficient back-up BELARUS and KALININGRAD Idem
  • 8. Risks of Nuclear Baltics - Economics VISAGINAS 3500 – 4500 €/kWe FOK – increasing costs and construction time Regulatory inexperience Too high debt for country Lack of means for RE and EE BELARUS Too high state debt KALININGRAD Russian political weapon Price Participation strat. inv.
  • 9. Advantages of Nuclear Baltics none except for short term interests nuclear elite
  • 10. Chances of a Nuclear-free Baltics Potentials www.inforse.org/europe/VisionBaltic.htm
  • 11. Energy Security No dependency on foreign fuel Decentralised technology – no large scale disruption More spread ownership Economics Long term: lower costs More employment Spread financial risks Chances of a Nuclear-free Baltics
  • 12. Policy Needs Now Get realistic: stop nuclear plans Work out different energy policy scenarios Re-focus human and financial capacity to EE and RE Social-economic plan for Ignalina / Visaginas Region Full transparency in the debate (Aarhus / ACN process)
  • 13. [email_address] Thank you for your attention

Editor's Notes

  1. “ Nuclear energy is among those industrial activities that face high expectations for transparency and accountability in decision making.” This is nonsense. 1. Nuclear energy is NOT undergoing a renaissance – remember Karel Schwarzenberg in Prague, ENEF – let's avoid it, but that needs transparency. 2. Is this the opinion of EESC?? I think this is pure propaganda and wonder whether we (as environmental NGOs) are still appreciated here in the discussion? 2. Nuclear energy is a special industrial activity that because of its speciality MUST be more transparent and accountable than anything else! Reality, however, is that there is virtually no transparency. There is a lot of PR – a lot of information push... there is very little response on information requests. What i want from transparency of nuclear energy
  2. My expectations are pretty low.
  3. My expectations are pretty low.
  4. My expectations are pretty low.
  5. My expectations are pretty low.
  6. My expectations are pretty low.
  7. My expectations are pretty low.
  8. My expectations are pretty low.
  9. My expectations are pretty low.
  10. My expectations are pretty low.
  11. My expectations are pretty low.
  12. My expectations are pretty low.