“Nuclear-Free” European Compensation For Chornobyl Shutdown?
The European Union has promptly reacted to the President of Ukraine’s statement that the Chorobyl nuclear power plant will be shut down before December 15, 2000. Official representative of the European Commission Guenter Wigan said, “The EU is going to speed up raising funds to help Ukraine search for alternative sources of energy.” The aid was assessed at $1.5 billion in loans and grants. More than half of this amount - $800 million - should come from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The other part should be funded by EU national governments.
“The ice has been broken,” a well-known fictional character might have said. So the ball is now in the court of the donors who must provide financial aid to enable the Ukrainian side to fulfill its plans. This was recorded in the Ottawa memorandum of understanding between the governments of Ukraine, the G7 countries, and the Commission of the European Communities on the closure of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant (CNPP), dated December 20, 1995. One of the drafts of this document envisions reforming Ukraine’s power sector, as well as completing construction of compensating power facilities. As the sides decided earlier, the most rational choice would be to build reactors at the Khmelnytsky and Rivne power plants. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs always says, Ukraine’s official position is to fulfill all clauses of this memorandum.
Kyiv pointed out at all previous meetings with EU representatives that Ukraine will need funds not only for the CNPP shutdown but also for building two reactors at the Khmelnytsky and Rivne power plants in order to avert a real disaster in the power sector.
The EU, on the contrary, speaks about alternative sources of energy, totally unacceptable for Ukraine. Vadym Hryshchenko, Deputy Chief of the Nuclear Regulation Department, told The Day that our state is in any case implementing various alternative source-related programs. However, Mr. Hryshchenko noted, it should be borne in mind that it is the nuclear plants that account for the greatest share — 45-50% — of electric power generated in this country. Utilizing alternative sources, on which some EU countries insist, would be unprofitable for Ukraine for two reasons: firstly, one kilowatt/hour of, say, wind energy would cost our consumers ten times as much as the energy from traditional sources. Secondly, Mr. Hryshchenko doubts that the capacities of the alternative electric stations can replace those of the nuclear power plants.
At the same time, there are permanent ‘’anti-nuclear’’ lobbyists in Brussels. First of all, it is Germany who stresses under pressure by the Green Party, a ruling coalition partner, that the funds the European Union allocated to Ukraine should in no way be used for the construction of nuclear reactors.
By all accounts, there will still be more obstacles to the solution of the Chornobyl problems. The donor countries will try to solve some of them this coming July at the Berlin conference. The main issue to be discussed will be appropriating funds by donors to construct a new CNPP shelter because the existing sarcophagus no longer provides the required level of safety from radiation.
