Europe needs all of us to build its future.

Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, the Czech Republic...The economic issues of a shared nuclear safety in Europe

Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, the Czech Republic...

The economic issues of a shared nuclear safety in Europe

Photos and slides shown by the speakers

Minutes of the conference

En français

Straight away, Germany, Italy and Switzerland announced their intentions to abandon nuclear power. Spain and Belgium have not yet made up their minds. These decisions will create enormous problems, not only in terms of security of supply and recourse to imports from neighbouring countries but also decommissioning and waste management.

Conversely, the Central and Eastern European countries and the Baltic countries have on the whole decided to stick with nuclear to ensure their energy independence, and some are even intending to increase their production to become “suppliers”. So what will happen in this highly strategic area? Of the 143 reactors currently in operation in the European Union, 19 are in Central Europe and 16 are of Russian origin. After Chernobyl, these countries had to bring their plants up to safety standards. Lithuania had to close its plant as a condition for accession. After Fukushima, all the EU countries will have to meet higher standards. How are the Baltic and the Central and Eastern European countries going to rise to the challenges of combining economic interests and security requirements?

The aim of this debate was to gather information, clarify and analyse the situation in detail, and reflect together on the solidarity issues and the solutions necessary for building a common nuclear safety culture capable of preserving the economic interests of everyone.

Introduction:

Claude FISCHER, President of Confrontations Europe

1st round table:

"Fukushima: the 2^nd chock"

The prevailing opinion of stakeholders in Central and East Europe and the Baltic countries.
The Fukushima disaster came as a global shock, and it is one that concerns all countries. In Europe, however, it has come as a double shock for the new Member States of the European Union who have already taken the full brunt of the Chernobyl disaster. To join the EU in 2004 and 2007, Europe imposed western nuclear safety standards and closures on these countries, and today their hopes have been dashed with the announcement that all these standards have to be raised! They are going to have to pass nuclear stress tests and start all over again. What problems is this going to pose? What are the economic issues? Will projects be called into question? What is the reaction of public opinion and Member States?

Gérard COGNET, Nuclear adviser, CEA for Central Europe-
Zuzana KREJCIRIKOVA, Director of CEZ Group office in Brussels
Jozef ZLATNANSKY , Head of Nuclear oversight, Slovenské elektrárne, a.s.

The impact of Germany’s decision on Central European countries, and the cost for all EU countries of the permanent closure of these nuclear power plants (Angela Merkel has said that the power plants in Germany are the least safe in Western Europe; should the country upgrade them to meet higher safety standards during the transition period?)

Should we not revive the idea of a “nuclear Schengen”?
Rolf LINKOHR, former MEP

Gérard COGNET	Zuzana KREJCIRIKOVA	Jozef ZLATNANSKY
Slides Gérard COGNET	Slides Zuzana KREJCIRKOVA
		Rolf LINKOHR

Fukushima set a renunciation wave in motion, which has so far spread to Germany, Switzerland and Italy. France is resisting, as are the new Member States, but they are in search of solutions to overcome the obstacles, notably regarding the financing of projects. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania are good examples of the nuclear issues facing this strategic area. Nuclear power is more than just a source of energy; it is a means of achieving energy independence and an important economic resource. The nuclear renaissance represents economic interests, arising not only from the profitability of the technology but also the possibility of a future economic windfall for countries that become “suppliers”.

Sylvain DROSS, Strategic Advisor for life extension of the nuclear park, Operations Engineering, EDF
Violeta GREICIUVIENE, Acting Head, Strategic Projects Division, Ministry of Energy of Lithuania
Pal KOVACS, Deputy State Secretary at the Hungarian National Development Ministry
Siyka PENKOVA, Manager of Financial Resources, Kozloduy NPP, Bulgaria

Russia has voiced the same concerns regarding the reconciliation of economic and safety issues. What are the existing safety standards? As a builder of power plants in the EU, what are the country’s plans in this respect?
Kirill KOMAROV, Executive Director, Rosatom

		Europe NPPs Map

The European Union helped its new members adhere to existing standards to accede to the EU. Today, the principle of solidarity is even more justified, but it remains to be seen how this will take form. We must anticipate the end of stress testing, scheduled to take place in April 2012, and prepare for what will come afterwards. What role will the nuclear safety authorities play? If the stress tests currently underway result in common standards of safety in Europe – as is hoped, but this time for all 27 Member States – would it not be normal and more economical if the costs of upgrading plants (modernisation, construction of new power plants, decommissioning, etc.) were shared, along with the skills and expertise?

Zacharie GROSS, Director AREVA Brussels
Paul RORIVE, Senior VP of Nuclear Activities, GDF SUEZ
Vladimir URUTCHEV, MEP, Bulgaria
Ludmilla ZOLTANNE KISS, President of Women In Nuclear Hungary

	Slides Zoltanne Kiss

Conclusions :

Minutes of the conference

2011-06-27 Minutes

En français