Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

1,204 views

Published 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 "Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos".

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,204
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
321
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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.
  • Jan Haverkamp. Branduolinė Baltijos ateitis: rizikos ir perspektyvos

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

    ×