Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

on

  • 1,120 views

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

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".

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,120
Views on SlideShare
801
Embed Views
319

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 319

http://www.atomine.lt 215
http://atomine.lt 100
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • “ 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.

Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos Presentation Transcript

  • 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