Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

  • 924 views
Uploaded on

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

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".

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
924
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • “ 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
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.
  • My expectations are pretty low.

Transcript

  • 1. THE BALTIC NUCLEAR PHASE-OUT Risks and Chances Ir. Jan Haverkamp Greenpeace EU policy campaigner dirty energy [email_address]
  • 2. Nuclear Baltics
  • 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