Environmentalists criticise the Energy strategy approved by the government
Press Release
March 23, 2006
Environmental NGOs have heavily criticised the Energy Strategy of Ukraine up to 2030, proposed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and presented an alternative scenario in their own Concept of the Non-nuclear Option of Development of the Power Industry of Ukraine up to 2030.
The alternative scenario, developed by energy experts contracted by NGOs, excludes commissioning of new NPPs and extension of service life of already operational ones. Instead, the scenario stipulates reduction of energy demand and investments into energy efficient technologies, development of renewable and alternative energy sources.
Estimates of the alternative concept strip away the stereotype view that the nuclear power is the cheapest energy source. Costs of nuclear and non-nuclear scenarios seem to be almost equal, however, cost estimates of the nuclear scenario incorporate too many blind spots, including costs of waste management, reconstruction of power supply networks, decommissioning of NPPs, mitigation of accidents' impacts, etc.
Environmentalists pointed out numerous risks and unresolved problems, associated with nuclear power: high investments, risks of accidents, terrorism, and dependence on foreign equipment producers. Under such conditions, a higher consumption of natural gas seems to be more attractive.
Ganna Golubovska-Onisimova, the President of MAMA-86 All-Ukraine Environmental NGO, states: "The Concept of the Non-nuclear Option of Development of Power Industry of Ukraine was developed by independent environmental NGOs as a response to reluctance of the Government to consider seriously any alternative to the nuclear scenario of the Energy Strategy. Notwithstanding our numerous applications, the Government has failed to conduct a broad public discussion on the Draft Strategy with involvement of all stakeholders, violating thus many Ukrainian laws. Such narrow-circle approach to development of a crucially important national document resulted in its low quality, that cannot be hidden under a smokescreen of the gas hysteria."
Andriy Kenechenkov, the Vice-president of the Renewable Energy Agency NGO and the Editor in Chief of "Green Power" magazine, noted: "The Energy Strategy of Ukraine, approved recently by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, is a document without a sound economic and technical justification. The proposal to construct 22 new reactor units and to meet demand in heat and electricity by means of electricity generation would result in economic and environmental crisis in Ukraine. If we account for all consequences of development of the nuclear industry, including processing, storage and final disposal of nuclear waste, the Strategy implementation in its current form is impossible. At the same time, Ukraine has huge reserves of renewable energy, in particular, now, bio-energy resources alone may ensure heat energy supply to more than 30 thousand agricultural facilities. Twenty three facilities of the former military and industrial complex produce now components of wind turbines in the framework of the Comprehensive Program for Construction of Wind Power Stations in Ukraine. There is a huge energy efficiency capacity. Should we invest funds, stipulated for development of nuclear power, into environmentally sound technologies, as developed countries do, Ukraine would become a really European country with a bright future for generations to come".
Olexiy Pasyuk from the National Environmental Centre of Ukraine said: "It seems that the Energy Strategy was developed to make only one company — Energoatom — flourish. It is clear that it would be impossible to implement the program of construction of so large number of reactor units and development of a closed nuclear fuel cycle. The nuclear industry will "digest" billions of Hryvnya from the state budget today in order to blackmail the Government by potential accidents tomorrow and demand new investments."
Andriy Martynyuk from the EcoClub reminded: "All Ukrainian NPPs have serious problems with recovery of water losses from cooling towers and ponds. Even now, KhNPP permanently pumps water from the Goryn river — the key river of Rivne region. Rivne oblast authorities had to construct a dam to maintain water level in the river. RNNP was constructed on karst rocks. It is not appropriate to construct even multi-storey residential houses in areas with such topography, nothing to say about installations that potentially may kill hundreds of thousands people. Talks about further works on sites of RNPP and KhNPP are nothing less than a criminal negligence."
Natalya Vyshnevska (The Voice of Nature) said: "More than 40 million m3 of radioactive waste have been accumulated in Dniprodzerzhinsk (Dripropetrovsk Oblast). The problem of their secure storage was not addressed for 14 years, — every year the Government of Ukraine allocated money to maintain tailing ponds with radioactive waste in a safe state, but practically no steps were make to eliminate consequences. One cannot consider construction of new nuclear reactors when neither the nuclear industry, nor the Government can manage the already accumulated waste!"
Volodymyr Usatenko, the expert of the National Commission for Radiation Protection of Ukraine stated: "As a result of nuclear energy use, mining and processing of uranium ores at the territory of Ukraine, the stockpiles of radioactive waste reached 130 million m3, associated waste management costs reached $65 trillion. Artificially low tariffs for electric power from NPPs resulted in uncontrolled accumulation of high level radioactive waste on sites of NPPs, posing permanent accident risks. Postponing decisions on management of irradiated nuclear fuel, lack of finance allocations for the insurance fund, the fund for decommissioning of NPPs, absolutely unclear investment costs of construction of new NPPs and problems of already operational ones — all these factors may generate problems that could be much worse that military use of nuclear weapons at the territory of Ukraine. There is an alternative to such madness — enhancement of energy efficiency of production and consumption to the level of modern technologies."
Environmental NGOs demand to review the Strategy, with due consultations and assessment of several alternative options. See the Concept at: mama-86.org.ua/files/nnconcept_eng.pdf.
Contacts:
Ganna Golubovska-Onisimova — phone 8 067 4657046, mama-86.org.ua
Olexiy Pasyuk — phone 8 050 5711684, www.necu.org.ua
Andriy Kenechenkov — phone 8 067 2092065, www.rea.org.ua
Natalya Vyshnevska — phone 8 050 5455928, voice.infodz.com.ua
Andriy Martynyuk — phone 8 097 2359232, www.ecoclub.ukrwest.net
